Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: andreisdaman on April 13, 2011, 02:24:09 PM
-
Obama continues his ass-kicking of 3333...gives an awesome speech today on major deficit reduction and tells the american public that cuts to social programs and tax increases that he proposes will decrease the deficit by 4 trillion dollars within the next 10-12 years
and he plans to tax the rich at the fair rate in which they should be taxed...they have been getting a free ride for years....Obama must also tax the oil companies who are getting record profits....
So for all you conservatives out there..Obama is now tackling the budget deficit and has outlined a plan to reduce it dramatically in upcoming years if he gets the cooperation of the Republicans....
OBAMA WILL BE THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME BY THE TIME HE IS DONE!!!!! :D
-
OMFG - are you serious?
Ha ha ha ha ha hA - tell me you are doing for a goof.
-
An obvious bait thread, but I'll bite.
"Reducing the deficit by 4 trillion dollars over 10 years?"
So we will still be running massive deficits for 10-12 years. I'm go to love to see the interest payments on all that debt by that time. Probably around 500 billion, sweet.
Good to know.
-
Obama's Deceit
American Thinker ^ | April 13, 2011 | Frank Gutting
Okay, I have had it with this President's blatant dishonesty. His speech today was appallingly deceitful and misleading. This President, has spent more money and added more debt than any other President in history. This is not political rhetoric, this is simply fact! Barack Obama's budget deficit in March of 2011 was larger than the deficit for all of 2007!
According to Obama's 2012 Budget Proposal, under Historical Tables, the budget deficit under George Bush first peaked in 2004 at $412 billion dollars. Between 2005 and 2007 the budget deficit declined by $252 billion to reach its low, under Bush, at $160 billion. If the tax cuts and wars, both occurring in 2001 and 2003, caused our current financial situation, how did the deficit fall between 2004 to 2007? Because Tax Cuts increase revenue to the government by allowing people and business to invest more of their own money. As people invest they conduct taxable transactions which bring in revenue to the government.
So where did Obama come up with the claim that he inherited a trillion dollar deficit? In 2008, the deficit under Bush climbed to a new high of $458 billion. The reason for the climb was the fiscal stimulus and emergency spending as a result of the financial crises. However, this number is somewhat misleading. The fiscal year for 2008 ended in October of that year, pushing much of the onetime emergency spending on the 2009 budget. When you add that spending onto the budget baseline, you come up with a deficit for 2009 of $1.4 trillion. While Obama is correct that he is not solely responsible for the 2009 budget, he is lying by not informing the American people most of the deficit was "one time emergency spending." He, Barack H. Obama, chose to put that spending in the baseline budget for the next decade. Thus, we have $1 trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.
The President claimed that we didn't "pay for" the tax cuts. Excuse me Mr. President, when someone takes a pay cut, do they have to "pay for it?" A tax cut means the government simply takes less of YOUR money, what is there to pay for? This, seemingly innocuous, difference comes from the President's view that government has a right to your money. To Obama, it is not your income, but governments', and government not taking all of your money is an act of compassion. Obama believes that by leaving more of your money in your pocket, it is the equivalent of government sending you a check! If government sends you a check, that means government must "pay for" the tax cut. Unbelievable!
(Here is a link to his budget proposal: select table 1.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)
-
Obama continues his ass-kicking of 3333...gives an awesome speech today on major deficit reduction and tells the american public that cuts to social programs and tax increases that he proposes will decrease the deficit by 4 trillion dollars within the next 10-12 years
and he plans to tax the rich at the fair rate in which they should be taxed...they have been getting a free ride for years....Obama must also tax the oil companies who are getting record profits....
So for all you conservatives out there..Obama is now tackling the budget deficit and has outlined a plan to reduce it dramatically in upcoming years if he gets the cooperation of the Republicans....
OBAMA WILL BE THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME BY THE TIME HE IS DONE!!!!! :D
::)
-
Andre - are you being paid for this?
-
He must be gettting paid for this.
I havent gotten the opportunity to listen to the entire thing, but I have heard excepts, and this has got to be the worst speech ever. This thing sucked. Lie after lie after lie. Talk radio had a ball tearing this turd to shreds today. If he wantns to stage his re election on class warfare, I am up for the challenge. I cannot believe he seems to think we can cut the deficit by cutting military spending and raising taxes on the wealthy.
Here is the fucking retarded thing: Raising taxes on those who make more than $250000 at the most would get you $70 billion a year. You gotta be fucking kidding. You are losing a lot in innovation and lost jobs if you raise thier taxes though. Unfortunately, people do seem to support this, but that is because they havent thought it through at all. People fucking suck. They dont want to cut medicaire, social security or medicaid, but they want taxes raises on those who make more money than them. SOmebody tell these fucking retards that it is the spending and investing of other people that make more money than you that creates YOUR JOB and INCOME. FUCK!!!!
RE-ELECT this piece of shit in the White House America. I DARE YOU.
-
I almost tossed the radio out the window when he was talking about the vouchers for seniors being unfair since they will have to be subject to private isurance rate hikes by carriers etc and rising costs. I almost choked when I heard that since bama care does exactly that to everybody.
does he even read this crap before he repeats it off the teleprompter?
-
If I’m not mistaken (I’m not), he didn’t actually outline anything. He just rambled on, played the class warfare angle, laid blame on Bush for the 25,000th time and then rambled some more. Horrible speech but par the course for the God-King.
-
Seemed like a bogus attempt to deal w the positive press ryan is getting as well as the flak bama is getting for treating simpson bowles like stage props.
-
You are losing a lot in innovation and lost jobs if you raise thier taxes though.
What a load of b/s ::)
-
What a load of b/s ::)
YOu trust the federal government to create jobs more than these guys? REally? You mean after that successfull stimulus program that still has us close to 10% unemployment.
-
If I’m not mistaken (I’m not), he didn’t actually outline anything. He just rambled on, played the class warfare angle, laid blame on Bush for the 25,000th time and then rambled some more. Horrible speech but par the course for the God-King.
I heard that he talked about the fucking 80s. THe fucking 80s!!!!!! He talked about Reagan and the 80s!!!! How retarded can you fucking be. Reagan's debt to asset ratio is FAR smaller than Obama's. FAR SMALLER. You have to be fucking kidding me. Its one thing to criticise Bush when Bush's deficits were fare smaller, but to criticise Reagan?????? And then he goes and talks about the fucking 90s with Clinton and the surpluses. Newsflash to liberals: first of all, Clinton was a MODERATE. Secondly, Republicans controlled Congress after Clinton's first two disasterous years. Third, Clinton NEVER handed a balanced budget plan to Newt Gingrich. I actually was a Clinton Democrat back in the 90s when I was a stupid highschool kid that didnt like religious conservatives, but you cant keep your head in the sand forever.
-
Andre - do you really buy into his lies.
-
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
APRIL 14, 2011.The Presidential Divider
Obama's toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.
The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.
Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.
Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.
***
The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.
View Full Image
Bloomberg News
.Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare's gargantuan liabilities is that it is "just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse." His own plan is to double down on the program's price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out "unnecessary spending." Is that the same as "waste and abuse"?
Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won't harm seniors' care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.
Mr. Obama really went off on Mr. Ryan's plan to increase health-care competition and give consumers more control, barely stopping short of calling it murderous. It's hardly beyond criticism or debate, but the Ryan plan is neither Big Rock Candy Mountain nor some radical departure from American norms.
Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen "to find additional savings," whatever those might be, after a "fundamental review." These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.
Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.
Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.
Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that's three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.
Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt "failsafe," which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else "making government smarter, leaner and more effective." Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting "waste and abuse."
Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors "a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history." Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President's political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
-
Outside View: President’s budget speech offers little to cheer
Published: April 14, 2011 at 7:18 AM
By PETER MORICI, UPI Outside View Commentator
COLLEGE PARK, Md., April 14 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to balance the budget was a brilliant political speech -- highlighting weakness in the Republican deficit reduction proposal drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. -- but it offered little new or encouraging that would correct Washington's troubled finances.
Once again, Obama blamed President George W. Bush for the mess -- citing two wars and tax cuts that were not funded -- when his own political party is more culpable.
In 2007, the last year before the financial crisis and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the Democrats took control of Congress, the deficit was a quite manageable $161 billion. Over the next four years, spending has increased $1.1 trillion and the deficit jumped to $1.6 trillion.
The president's February budget projected the deficit would fall to $772 billion by 2022. However, that forecast is dubious, because it assumes 4 percent growth over the next four years, which few economists would endorse, and cuts in Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals few political observers believe will materialize. More likely, deficits will exceed $1 trillion, or even $1.5 trillion for the next decade, without further action.
In his speech Wednesday the president claimed to be tabling $4 trillion in additional cuts over 12 years but there was little new from his February budget.
Obama proposed higher taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year. While that may be good populist politics, those tax increases were already in his February budget and presenting those as additional deficit reduction is deception not worthy of his high office.
As he suggested, some loopholes could be plugged in corporate tax rules. However, moderate Democrats and Republicans agree U.S. corporate taxes are too high for American companies to be competitive. Most revenue that might be found fixing abuses will eventually have to be put into lower corporate taxes for those firms bearing an unfair share of the burden.
Central to the fiscal mess are the rapidly growing bills for Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. The president suggested using huge Medicare purchases to negotiate lower drug prices but he offered no specifics about how that is to be done.
For the rest of healthcare spending, he again asserted the regulatory panels and boards established by 2010 healthcare reform law would cut costs but the jump in 2011 health insurance premiums reveals those measures are ineffective.
Federal and state governments pay 55 cents of every dollar Americans spend on healthcare and government reimbursements, not a private market, determine most prices for health services.
Germany and Holland, like the United States, have systems of private insurers and government reimbursements pay nearly 80 percent of healthcare costs. Yet, in those countries healthcare costs are about half the nearly $8,000 America spends for each citizen, because the German and Dutch governments do a better job of regulating prices.
Neither the president nor congressional Republicans have explained how they are going to improve on subpar U.S. regulatory performance and significantly lower prices for health care services. Until they do, it is hard to take either party's deficit reduction plans seriously.
The Republican plan -- Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" -- would replace federal Medicaid with block grants to the states and Medicare with vouchers to seniors to buy private insurance. But those tactics, as the president correctly asserts, would merely shift the problem of paying too much for healthcare services onto the backs of the poor and elderly.
On Social Security, the basic problems are that Americans are living much longer and retiring long before their health requires and the ratio of retirees to working age Americans is too high and rising. Simply, the retirement age should be raised to 70 for Americans under the age of 55 and neither the president nor congressional Republicans want to take the political heat for telling Americans the hard truth.
When Democrats and Republicans are willing to start seriously regulating prices for health services and embrace a substantial and immediate increase in the retirement age, Americans will know they are serious.
Until then, the political speeches will continue and investors should conclude that U.S. Treasury securities are a risky long-term investment. It's high time Standard and Poor's and other agencies downgraded the federal government's AAA bond rating.
--
(Peter Morici is a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2011/04/14/Outside-View-Presidents-budget-speech-offers-little-to-cheer/UPI-93971302779909/#ixzz1JVQHd2es
________________________ ________________________ _____________
Obama's speech yesterday was a new low even for him. It was one o the most dishonest things I have heard n a long time.
No wonder the 95%'ers loved t.
-
No wonder Joe Biden was sleeping...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/joe-biden-sleeping-asleep_n_848862.html
-
Obama continues his ass-kicking of 3333...gives an awesome speech today on major deficit reduction and tells the american public that cuts to social programs and tax increases that he proposes will decrease the deficit by 4 trillion dollars within the next 10-12 years
and he plans to tax the rich at the fair rate in which they should be taxed...they have been getting a free ride for years....Obama must also tax the oil companies who are getting record profits....
So for all you conservatives out there..Obama is now tackling the budget deficit and has outlined a plan to reduce it dramatically in upcoming years if he gets the cooperation of the Republicans....
OBAMA WILL BE THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME BY THE TIME HE IS DONE!!!!! :D
Could you kindly remove the scrotum from your lips and get some facts straight, please?
First, Obama didn't define any "fair rate" in his speech. Heck, no "tax the rich" liberal does.
"Obama is now tackling the budget deficit... NEWS FLASH!!! He should have done this OVER A YEAR AGO. If he'd been doing such an "awesome" job with this or any other issue, the Dems wouldn't have received that @$$-whipping they took at midterms; and he'd still have complete control of Washington.
He and the Dems failed to pass the 2011 budget, because they wanted to do all that mess he talked in that speech. Had they even tried it, they would have been clobbered even worse than they were.
-
Again - obama screamed about not having medicare recpients subject to the private insurance market price increases yet that is exactly what bama care does to the rest of us!
Who cant see what a liar this pofs is?
-
Interesting. I thought Republicans was supposed to be the only party to use the politics of class warfare and fear. So much for that theory.
-
Interesting. I thought Republicans was supposed to be the only party to use the politics of class warfare and fear. So much for that theory.
says who? both parties use it, quite effectively.
-
Obama's Speech Was a Waste of Breath
By Clive Crook
Apr 13 2011, 3:53 PM ET
www.theatlantic.com
Obama had a difficult assignment in this speech, partly because of the exaggerated hopes for it (see previous post). Even allowing for that, it was weak both politically and substantively. My instant unguarded reaction, in fact, was to find it not just weak but pitiful. I honestly wondered why he bothered.
There was no sign of anything worth calling a plan to curb borrowing faster than in the budget. He offered no more than a list of headings under which $4 trillion of deficit reduction (including the $2 trillion already in his budget) might be found--domestic non-security spending, defense, health costs, and tax reform. Fine, sure. But what he said was devoid of detail. He spent more of his time stressing what he would not agree to than describing clear proposals of his own.
His rebuttal of the Ryan plan was all very well--I agree it's no good--but the administration still lacks a rival plan. That, surely, is what this speech had to provide, or at least point to, if it was going to be worth giving in the first place. His criticisms of Ryan and the Republicans need no restating. And did the country need another defense of public investment in clean energy and the American social contract? It wanted to be told how fiscal policy is going to be mended: if not by the Ryan plan, with its many grave defects, then how?
Bowles-Simpson is the right basic answer. Obama several times said he was drawing on their recommendations, but he did so only partially and incoherently. He has not embraced their overall approach, not by a long shot. Nothing on Social Security. Little of what they propose on Medicare. And on tax reform I think he is actually making it harder for himself to move, eventually, in their direction.
Far from seeking compromise on tax policy, the whole speech was yet again organised around an attack on the evil Bush tax cuts, and a promise to reverse them in part. We would not be in this mess, he said, but for the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I wondered, as he said that, is he therefore going to call for the drug benefit to be halted and all the Bush tax cuts to be reversed? Stupid question. Of course not. Just the tax cuts for the rich, leaving the much larger part of the Bush tax policy in place. Even now, he is deploring the Bush tax cuts as the cause of all the country's problems while actually proposing to leave most of them alone.
Bowles-Simpson proposes a base-broadening assault on tax expenditures and a lowering of marginal rates, for an overall increase in revenue. Obama picked up the tax-expenditure idea, mentioning Bowles-Simpson as he did so, but combined it with reaffirmed hostility to lower tax rates for the rich. (Again with the millionaires and billionaires.) He is still proposing an increase, not a decrease, in marginal rates on high incomes combined with restricted tax expenditures for those at the top of the income distribution--that is to say, two rounds of increases in high-income tax rates. The rich can pay for it all. That is Obama's tax policy. The whole point and key virtue of the Bowles-Simpson approach to taxes is that it held out the prospect of a deal between Democrats and Republicans: lower marginal rates in return for higher revenues. Obama appears to rule this out on principle.
The speech was more notable for its militant--though ineffectual--hostility to Republican proposals than for any fresh thinking of its own. It was a waste of breath.
-
Only fools and sheeple would applaud Obama's horrific speech yesterday (Hi, 240, Straw, KC, blackenwhork25cohibaneur otoxinmonsvenus!).
-
The Latest Politics, News & Election Videos
Charles Krauthammer On Obama's Speech: "It Was A Disgrace"
"I rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor. But we're a year and a half away from Election Day and it was supposed to be a speech about policy," syndicate columnist Dr. Charles Krauthammer said about President Obama's speech.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/13/charles_krauthammer_on_obamas_speech_it_was_a_disgrace.html
Video at site.
-
Rep. Paul Ryan: Obama Gave A Campaign Speech, Not A Plan
"What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem, and so I think what we got yesterday was a reelection campaign speech. I guess it sort of tipped it off to me this last weekend when we heard he was floating a speech, not a plan necessarily but a speech and he sent his campaign manager out to discuss it, not his budget director, not his Treasury secretary, not his chief of council economic advisers, but he sent his campaign manager out to announce this," Rep. Paul Ryan said today.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/14/rep_paul_ryan_obama_gave_a_campaign_speech_not_a_plan.html
-
President Boring. No Wonder Joe Biden Fell Asleep During Obama's Tedious Budget Speech.
Pajamas Media ^ | 04/14/2011 | Roger Simon
What is it about Barack Obama that caused his vice president Joe Biden to fall asleep during the president’s speech Tuesday?
Did Biden, getting on in years, just need his afternoon nap? Well, maybe, but the television cameras showed a woman quite near the veep nodding out as well.
No, I think it was a natural response. Biden and the woman were bored stiff. Barack Obama has become the most tedious president in my lifetime. He is like those college professors whose classes you did everything you could to avoid but, if you had to go, sat as far back as possible in order to get a little shut-eye yourself.
But what is it about Obama that makes him so boring? I submit it is something quite simple — he has nothing to say. He is a boring person, the quintessential “hollow man” in the T.S. Eliot sense. He is kind of a socialist, kind of a liberal, kind of a multi-culturalist, kind of an environmentalist, kind of globalist, kind of a budget cutter — but none of them with any real commitment. Basically, he’s a vague and uncommitted person pretending to be otherwise. He is the man that voted “present,” now in the presidency. The fact that he never specified the targets of “hope” and “change” during his election was far from a campaign ploy and more typical than we ever dreamed. There never was a there there. And now, I strongly suspect, there never will be.
We saw that writ large Tuesday in his dull budget speech – so devoid of detail and lacking in anything remotely original or surprising. Despite the titanic deficit crisis, it seemed almost phoned in. (No wonder Biden went to sleep.) But that has been the hallmark of Obama’s administration, disengagement and ennui. Even his signature legislation, the healthcare bill nobody read and nobody wants, reeks of alienation.
We have elected our own Joseph K., except he has nowhere near Kafka’s brilliance, nor the Czech’s dark humor.
Apparently, or so I have heard on the rumor mill, the troops inside the White House are well aware of this disengagement. They talk of how uncomfortable they feel listening to the president discuss sports for the first half-hour of a forty-five minute foreign policy meeting, seemingly unaware (or uncaring) of the urgent matters at hand. Perhaps this accounts for Rahm Emanuel’s quick exit from the administration. Surely, if he remained, bigger things awaited than even mayor of Chicago.
I have written earlier that Obama does not really want to be president. I think I overstated it. He “kind of” wants to be president. He will run for reelection because he doesn’t want to lose, not because he wants to continue what he is doing. (He isn’t doing much — and business as usual liberal deficit spending is not likely to make a comeback anytime soon.)
I listened to a conservative pundit on Hannity tonight opining that the 2012 election will be the most important in our country’s history, that if Obama were reelected we would be plunged into socialism.
I tend to doubt it. With a Republican House and, most likely, a Republican Senate we will be headed into four years of stultifying stagnation. Most likely of all, like Joe Biden, we will all go to sleep.
Or, as Eliot put it at the end of “The Hollow Men”:
This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.
UPDATE: As for the substance of the wretched Obama speech, the WSJ has it just right.
-
Man, Obama is taking a BEATING on all fronts today. He needs to fire his speech writer ASAP.
-
Man, Obama is taking a BEATING on all fronts today. He needs to fire his speech writer ASAP.
Only idots like EJ Dionne and some of the other uber-libs looking for sweet whispers from bama liked that disgraceful mess yesterday.
He did the same thing with Ryan sitting in the fron row that he did on the SC in the Citizens United case. He is a bully and punk and only does that when he knows the other side cant respond to his lies.
He is a liar, a disgrace, a fraud, a thief, a grifter, a vagabond, a hood rat, a childish bitch, and otherwise the mose dishonest politicians I have ever seen in my life.
-
Only idots like EJ Dionne and some of the other uber-libs looking for sweet whispers from bama liked that disgraceful mess yesterday.
He did the same thing with Ryan sitting in the fron row that he did on the SC in the Citizens United case. He is a bully and punk and only does that when he knows the other side cant respond to his lies.
He is a liar, a disgrace, a fraud, a thief, a grifter, a vagabond, a hood rat, a childish bitch, and otherwise the mose dishonest politicians I have ever seen in my life.
The public's just about had enough. I've seen 1 positive review of his speech for every 10 negative ones. Horrible speech. The God-King must be kicking himself in the ass right now for that failure.
-
Its utterly amazing!
He ordered a debt panel with Simpson Bowles over a year ago. They busted their ass on that and came back with a reasonable plan tat bama should hve jumped on. Instead, bama pissed on them and tossed them aside despite the general good reviews it got.
Then, Ryan comes out with a plan himself that at least seems serious and credible. So now is Bama's turn, and what does he do? Play games and again say nothing but utter crap and bullshit and cause a spectacle destroying any chance of deal. He did not even call for adopting Simpson Bowles for fucks sake!
Then, the Grifter in Chief says Ryans plan in unAmerican because it subjects medicare recepients to the price hikes and spike in the prvate insurance market. WHAT THE FUCK DOES OBAMACARE DO? Via the personal mandate that is what Bamacare does to everyone else!
Can't you sheepish idiots and dildos see how dishonest he is ?
-
This thread definitely didn't go the way that andresman intended.
It was a terrible speech. It had no meat to it. Hallow words. No plan. No nothing. No Leadership.
Just another campaign speech. Lots of fear-mongering, lots of obfuscation, deception and outright lies.
-His "Plan" doesn't take care of the structural/sustainability problems that S.S./Medicare/Medicaid are suffering from, i.e. they are insolvent.
-He kicks the can to 2013, which is after the elections (what a fuck) and doesn't tackle any hard problems.
He was telling us that seniors will have to choose between eating and medication, starvation and living on the streets....what a fucking hypocrite, Obama was the same clown that was telling "us" the people that it's hard for anything to get done if each side is using scare tactics and hyperbole.....Well, there he was, there the Democratic party was, attempting to scare seniors and the population in his speech. Obama is a child and clown. Period.
And he is getting hammered on all fronts today and rightfully so.
-
Obama Sinks to the Occasion
No hope, no change.
4:02 PM, Apr 13, 2011 • By FRED BARNES
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-sinks-occasion_557372.html
President Obama always lets you down. Just when you think he’s ready to deliver a lofty speech chocked with specifics on handling the spending and debt emergency, he offers up a hyper-partisan attack on the leading Republican proposal, gives practically no details of his own plan, and then sanctimoniously puts himself on the side of preserving “the American dream for future generations.”
Obama didn’t rise to the occasion. He actually sank, as he did two months ago when he released a 2012 budget that would increase spending by $40 billion and double the national debt over the next decade.
Let me list the lowlights of the president’s speech this afternoon at George Washington University:
♦ The problem is George W. Bush’s fault. This is a hardy perennial of Obama’s. “America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000,” he said. Then spending skyrocketed due to two wars and a prescription drug program and “we didn’t pay for any of this new spending.” The fiscal problem was made worse “with trillions of dollars in unpaid for tax cuts.” He didn’t mention that discretionary spending soared on his watch by 11 percent in 2009 and 14 percent in 2010, up from 6 percent in 2008, the last Bush year. Nor did he concede that Democrats wanted a bigger, more expensive Medicare drug program.
♦ The president distorted the Republican budget for 2012 drafted by Representative Paul Ryan and approved by the House Budget Committee. Ryan’s vision “says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them…[and] says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors,” Obama declared. And, oh, yes, there are the kids with disabilities or autism or Down syndrome who would have to “fend for themselves” if the Ryan budget passes.
♦ Obama resorts to class warfare – again. Ryan would “reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.” Please, tax cuts aren’t the same as spending. They lead to private investment, which creates jobs. In fact, Obama said, the rich would be happy to pay higher taxes. “Washington just hasn’t asked them to.” That’s the root of the deficit?
♦ Obama takes credit for already having cut $1 trillion in health care as a result of Obamacare. He uses this figure frequently, but does anyone really believe it? Not many. In a supposedly serious speech, it’s out of place. And guess who would make sure cuts in medical care actually occur? One of the most controversial and feared aspects of Obamacare: the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was purposely put out of the reach of congressional supervision. It may not be a death panel, but it’s headed in that direction.
♦ For all his vagueness, the president did set a goal of reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. He offered no specifics, only broad categories. But it’s specifics that matter. Goals for cutting spending are easy to set. They’re a Washington specialty. They’re just never met.
The president ended on a (false) high note. His plan embraces “a sense of responsibility” that Americans have for each other. “It’s patriotism.” Imagine the reaction if President Bush had said that. It wouldn’t have been pretty. But Obama will probably get away with it.
-
This thread definitely didn't go the way that andresman intended.
It was a terrible speech. It had no meat to it. Hallow words. No plan. No nothing. No Leadership.
Just another campaign speech. Lots of fear-mongering, lots of obfuscation, deception and outright lies.
-His "Plan" doesn't take care of the structural/sustainability problems that S.S./Medicare/Medicaid are suffering from, i.e. they are insolvent.
-He kicks the can to 2013, which is after the elections (what a fuck) and doesn't tackle any hard problems.
He was telling us that seniors will have to choose between eating and medication, starvation and living on the streets....what a fucking hypocrite, Obama was the same clown that was telling "us" the people that it's hard for anything to get done if each side is using scare tactics and hyperbole.....Well, there he was, there the Democratic party was, attempting to scare seniors and the population in his speech. Obama is a child and clown. Period.
And he is getting hammered on all fronts today and rightfully so.
Gigantor:
When heard thi i almost tossed the radio out the window:
Then, the Grifter in Chief says Ryans plan in unAmerican because it subjects medicare recepients to the price hikes and spike in the prvate insurance market. WHAT THE FUCK DOES OBAMACARE DO? Via the personal mandate that is what Bamacare does to everyone else!
-
Obama vs. Obama
National Review Online ^ | 04/14/11 | Victor Davis Hanson
The president gave the sort of scare speech he not long ago warned against, and blasted the income-tax rates he not long ago agreed were necessary — in a context in which he has just presented a budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit of the sort he now says is unsustainable, and has warned about recklessly voting against raising the debt ceiling in a fashion that he himself had once done, in a larger landscape in which he had once damned attacking Middle East countries in optional wars, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detention, intercepts, wiretaps, Predators, and leaving troops in Iraq, and then embraced or expanded all that and more (this list is infinite and includes everything from drilling to campaign financing to earmarks).
These weird about-faces raise interesting questions that transcend the current politics of the deficit:
a) Has Obama in his past careers never been called to account and so reached a point where simply being Obama means that we are not supposed to apply standards of accuracy, memory, and consistency to him in the way we do to all others?
b) Or does an absent-minded Obama carelessly make up things up ad hoc as he goes along, forgetting what he said earlier, but secure that his hope-and-change delivery of the moment will so mesmerize the audience that no one will remember or care if at times he ends up saying exactly the opposite of what he had said earlier?
c) Or is he so blatantly partisan a politician that he has no principles at all and knowingly says things that are aimed at appealing to 51 percent of the public at any given moment, and therefore will always change with public opinion?
d) Or is he so cynical that he understands campaign rhetoric has nothing to do with actual governance, and so he is allowed to say something that he knows in advance that he is not bound to follow?
e) Or is he so bored with the trying job that he feels no responsibility to offer reliable, consistent governance, and so rashly throws things out and then hastens back to the more enjoyable PR aspects of the office?
-
next speech - the repubs who are invited should bring subway and eat sandwiches while he speaks. Whenever he tells a lie, they should laugh with food falling out of their mouths.
-
next speech - the repubs who are invited should bring subway and eat sandwiches while he speaks. Whenever he tells a lie, they should laugh with food falling out of their mouths.
Then they would starve
-
next speech - the repubs who are invited should bring subway and eat sandwiches while he speaks. Whenever he tells a lie, they should laugh with food falling out of their mouths.
Or they could just sleep through it like Plugs Biden did.
-
Obama vs. Obama
National Review Online ^ | 04/14/11 | Victor Davis Hanson
The president gave the sort of scare speech he not long ago warned against, and blasted the income-tax rates he not long ago agreed were necessary — in a context in which he has just presented a budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit of the sort he now says is unsustainable, and has warned about recklessly voting against raising the debt ceiling in a fashion that he himself had once done, in a larger landscape in which he had once damned attacking Middle East countries in optional wars, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detention, intercepts, wiretaps, Predators, and leaving troops in Iraq, and then embraced or expanded all that and more (this list is infinite and includes everything from drilling to campaign financing to earmarks).
These weird about-faces raise interesting questions that transcend the current politics of the deficit:
a) Has Obama in his past careers never been called to account and so reached a point where simply being Obama means that we are not supposed to apply standards of accuracy, memory, and consistency to him in the way we do to all others?
b) Or does an absent-minded Obama carelessly make up things up ad hoc as he goes along, forgetting what he said earlier, but secure that his hope-and-change delivery of the moment will so mesmerize the audience that no one will remember or care if at times he ends up saying exactly the opposite of what he had said earlier?
c) Or is he so blatantly partisan a politician that he has no principles at all and knowingly says things that are aimed at appealing to 51 percent of the public at any given moment, and therefore will always change with public opinion?
d) Or is he so cynical that he understands campaign rhetoric has nothing to do with actual governance, and so he is allowed to say something that he knows in advance that he is not bound to follow?
e) Or is he so bored with the trying job that he feels no responsibility to offer reliable, consistent governance, and so rashly throws things out and then hastens back to the more enjoyable PR aspects of the office?
The WSJ has really been proving why they're the go-to news source in this country. They let facts do the talking and don't resort to personal insults and word games that the rest of the MSM relies on to cover up their ineptitude and incompetency.
-
YOu trust the federal government to create jobs more than these guys? REally? You mean after that successfull stimulus program that still has us close to 10% unemployment.
of course the rich can create jobs better than the feds..but that doesn't mean they should continue to get a free ride....they have to be taxed just like everyone else and you are a dupe for believing that it is unfair to tax them more because they create jobs
-
Could you kindly remove the scrotum from your lips and get some facts straight, please?
First, Obama didn't define any "fair rate" in his speech. Heck, no "tax the rich" liberal does.
"Obama is now tackling the budget deficit... NEWS FLASH!!! He should have done this OVER A YEAR AGO. If he'd been doing such an "awesome" job with this or any other issue, the Dems wouldn't have received that @$$-whipping they took at midterms; and he'd still have complete control of Washington.
He and the Dems failed to pass the 2011 budget, because they wanted to do all that mess he talked in that speech. Had they even tried it, they would have been clobbered even worse than they were.
first of all he had other major problems to tackle but he is now tackling the deficit....give him some credit...and again you are another dupe for the rich....they have to pay their fair share of taxes..you can't keep giving them tax break after tax break.....the rich have convinced guys like you that they shouldn't be taxed because they create jobs...so what????..taxes on them are the lowest they've ever been/.///its time for them to pay like you and me
-
of course the rich can create jobs better than the feds..but that doesn't mean they should continue to get a free ride....they have to be taxed just like everyone else and you are a dupe for believing that it is unfair to tax them more because they create jobs
Ah here we go with the "fair" bullshit again, the sooner you realize life ain't fair the better off you are going to be.
-
of course the rich can create jobs better than the feds..but that doesn't mean they should continue to get a free ride....they have to be taxed just like everyone else and you are a dupe for believing that it is unfair to tax them more because they create jobs
Yer sow smrt man. I wood def. higher u as my advizor if I was president.
-
This thread definitely didn't go the way that andresman intended.
It was a terrible speech. It had no meat to it. Hallow words. No plan. No nothing. No Leadership.
Just another campaign speech. Lots of fear-mongering, lots of obfuscation, deception and outright lies.
-His "Plan" doesn't take care of the structural/sustainability problems that S.S./Medicare/Medicaid are suffering from, i.e. they are insolvent.
-He kicks the can to 2013, which is after the elections (what a fuck) and doesn't tackle any hard problems.
He was telling us that seniors will have to choose between eating and medication, starvation and living on the streets....what a fucking hypocrite, Obama was the same clown that was telling "us" the people that it's hard for anything to get done if each side is using scare tactics and hyperbole.....Well, there he was, there the Democratic party was, attempting to scare seniors and the population in his speech. Obama is a child and clown. Period.
And he is getting hammered on all fronts today and rightfully so.
Obama's speech wasn't meant to outline a detailed plan...he would need to talk for three hours to do that....he simply stated his intentions....
-
Obama's speech wasn't meant to outline a detailed plan...he would need to talk for three hours to do that....he simply stated his intentions....
Of course I mean he's only had a year to come up with something, why would we expect to get any detail ::) And even then no budget gets passed, what a leader ::)
-
Andreisaretard's thread title from yesterday: "OBAMA'S ASS-KICKING OF 3333 CONTINUES... speech outlines major deficit reduction"
Andreisaretard's post 5 minutes ago: Obama's speech wasn't meant to outline a detailed plan...he would need to talk for three hours to do that....he simply stated his intentions....
You're a moron.
-
Ah here we go with the "fair" bullshit again, the sooner you realize life ain't fair the better off you are going to be.
so its okay for the rich not to pay their fair share of taxes???....meanwhile you and the other kneepab conservatives on here constantly complain about people getting a free ride....keep up the hypocrisy please..it makes me laugh even harder!!! ;D
-
so its okay for the rich not to pay their fair share of taxes???....meanwhile you and the other kneepab conservatives on here constantly complain about people getting a free ride....keep up the hypocrisy please..it makes me laugh even harder!!! ;D
50% of this country pays zero taxes. Fair. LOL.
-
Andreisaretard's thread title from yesterday: "OBAMA'S ASS-KICKING OF 3333 CONTINUES... speech outlines major deficit reduction"
Andreisaretard's post 5 minutes ago: Obama's speech wasn't meant to outline a detailed plan...he would need to talk for three hours to do that....he simply stated his intentions....
You're a moron.
He just won't face the fact that Obama is an incompetent ass, who's only purpose in giving the speech was demagoguery. Shit this is so important the the fucker is back in Chicago closing half the city down to go to fund raisers. I say again what a leader ::)
-
He just won't face the fact that Obama is an incompetent ass, who's only purpose in giving the speech was demagoguery. Shit this is so important the the fucker is back in Chicago closing half the city down to go to fund raisers. I say again what a leader ::)
Could be worse. It's not like the guy went to Brazil and left Hillary to handle the starting of a third war on her own for a week or anything like that. :-X
-
Of course I mean he's only had a year to come up with something, why would we expect to get any detail ::) And even then no budget gets passed, what a leader ::)
what plan do conservatives have except to cut taxes even more for the rich???...cutting taxes recklessly is what got us into this mess...meanwhile it was revealed that many tea party members get government subsidies...but thats okay because they are well off right???
-
so its okay for the rich not to pay their fair share of taxes???....meanwhile you and the other kneepab conservatives on here constantly complain about people getting a free ride....keep up the hypocrisy please..it makes me laugh even harder!!! ;D
You don't know shit from shinola, I guess footing most of the bill isn't enough for you. Same cry baby shit from the over educated, under employed 40 year old virgins.
-
what plan do conservative have except to cut taxes even more for the rich???...meanwhile it was revealed that many tea party members get government subsidies...but thats okay because they are well off right???
At least they presented a plan which is more than I can say for the dems, who by the way controlled the congress and the executive. Cry me a fucking river, you act like being poor is some debilitating disease. Bullshit, I'm sick of you left wings jackwagons always crying about whats fair, some of us work for a fucking living and it is not my responsibility to give people who don't a free ride. Fuck them and fuck you, your very existence offends me
-
Andreisaretard's thread title from yesterday: "OBAMA'S ASS-KICKING OF 3333 CONTINUES... speech outlines major deficit reduction"
Andreisaretard's post 5 minutes ago: Obama's speech wasn't meant to outline a detailed plan...he would need to talk for three hours to do that....he simply stated his intentions....
You're a moron.
Between him and Straw Man you've gotta wonder if the double talk will ever end.
Give it up Andre, you and your Messiah have nothing.
-
what plan do conservative have except to cut taxes even more for the rich???...meanwhile it was revealed that many tea party members get government subsidies...but thats okay because they are well off right???
Ryan's plan laid out everything he intended to do quite nicely. Obama gave a campaign speech and didn't lay out anything. He spent a wee bit of time alluding to what he wanted to do before falling back into his usual class warfare angle and blaming Bush. Much like you, he's a joke.
Between him and Straw Man you've gotta wonder if the double talk will ever end.
Give it up Andre, you and your Messiah have nothing.
It won't end. Nor will it end with their Messiah. They're just following his lead, after all.
-
What happened to simpson bowles?
-
Obama blows up the bridge
World Net Daily ^ | 4/14/2011 | Patrick J Buchanan
"Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells," said Rep. Paul Ryan, after listening to Barack Obama's scathing attack on his deficit-reduction plan as a shredding of America's social contract with the elderly and poor.
Ryan is right. Yet, with Obama's partisan savagery, virtually calling the GOP plan immoral, we have clarity.
There will be no grand bipartisan bargain on taxes and spending.
The two parties on Capitol Hill and the president will not be coming together to solve the gravest financial and fiscal crisis America has faced since the Great Depression. Between them today is a high wall and a deep ditch.
Read more: Obama blows up the bridge http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=287225#ixzz1JaEloR8d
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
-
Debt-fix 'wise men' suckered by Bam
By CHARLES GASPARINO
Last Updated: 4:32 AM, April 15, 2011
www.nypost.com
One way to know that President Oba ma's much-hyped "fiscal austerity" speech bombed is that even members of his own deficit-reduction commission apparently felt betrayed.
Sure, Erskine Bowles, the commission's Democratic chair, and Alan Simpson, the Republican, made some nice public statement about Obama's deficit-reduction plan after they met with him yesterday -- one day after the president unveiled his scheme to miraculously cut $4 trillion without reining in the looming catastrophes of Medicare and other entitlements. But people I spoke to in corporate America got a more unvarnished reaction in private from the debt-committee chieftains.
"What these guys can't understand is how Obama can ask them to come up with something, and then he doesn't listen to what they proposed," a Wall Street executive who knows both men well told me a few hours after the president's address on Wednesday.
More: "Erskine and Alan have been working both sides of the aisle trying to get people interested -- and then the guy who appointed them basically ignores what they said."
Say what you want about Bowles/Simpson's solutions -- living in high-tax New York, I was offended when Simpson said I needed to "sacrifice" more with higher taxes to fix the nation's fiscal mess. But the commission clearly saw the problem right: The huge explosion in spending on such entitlements as Medicare is as much a threat to our economy as our reliance on Mideast oil; we need to find a way to pay for those programs or cut them down to size.
The Republicans were willing to listen to them: Rep. Paul Ryan's plan, released last week, follows the commission in proposing major tax reform -- closing loopholes, lowering rates and using some of the savings to balance the federal books.
Yet the president appears to forget he ever appointed a bipartisan commission to deal with the nation's fiscal issues. In fact, his tone Wednesday was highly partisan, as if runaway spending was just a right-wing boogeyman.
Of course, his "calculations" are pure fantasy. He offered no real details as to how his $4 trillion in "cuts" might be achieved, and he stretched them out over more than a decade. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that we can afford all the big government programs already in action, not to mention ObamaCare, just by raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" who make $250,000 a year.
I don't believe it -- and neither, I'm told, do the people who run Obama's deficit commission.
What appears to have Bowles and Simpson most upset is that the president basically dropped all their reform ideas -- like the call to cut crippling entitlements, like Medicare, and Social Security -- while embracing the tax hikes.
Worse, Obama on Wednesday basically treated entitlements as sacred -- calling them a "fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations."
Weirder still is his attitude toward taxes. For Bowles and Simpson, tax hikes are nothing short of a necessary evil to prevent fiscal Armageddon.
But the president insists on calling everyone making over $250,000 "millionaires and billionaires" -- who, he wildly claims, have gotten "trillions of dollars of tax cuts" in recent years.
Anyway, he had to agree to extend the Bush-era tax rates last fall, when Democrats still had huge majorities in Congress. How does he figure he'll get higher taxes now? Doesn't seem to matter -- his budget still returns to his obsession with raising taxes on the so-called rich.
Simpson and Bowles have to play nice publicly. But in private, I'm told, they figure their work has been reduced to rubble by the president who appointed them. Their only real value to him was as window dressing, so he could pretend he cared about the deficit and the economy in the runup to the last Election Day.
Wonder who he'll find to be his patsies come fall 2012?
Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Net work senior correspondent.
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
nypost.com , nypostonline.com , and newyorkpost.com are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2011 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy | Terms of Use
-
Obama kicks budget can down the road
By Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Special to CNN
April 14, 2011 11:48 a.m. EDT
Laurence Kotlikoff: Obama didn't provide solutions to debt problem
Editor's note: Laurence J. Kotlikoff, an economist, is a William Fairfield Warren Professor at Boston University, a columnist for Bloomberg and Forbes and the author of 14 books including, "Jimmy Stewart Is Dead" (John Wiley and Sons), "The Healthcare Fix" (MIT Press) and "The Coming Generational Storm" (co-authored with Scott Burns, MIT Press).
Boston (CNN) -- In his speech on our nation's long-term budget crisis Wednesday, President Barack Obama identified the problem, but he failed to provide concrete solutions.
Indeed, when it came to describing how he would fix federal health care spending, Obama stayed pretty close to his budget document in which he said that Medicare and Medicaid costs would come down because they'd come down and, if they didn't, a panel of experts would tell Congress to lower them.
Give us a break. This is simply a continuation of kick-the-can down the road, which leaves ever larger government bills for our kids to pay.
To be clear, the president is absolutely right that the Bush administration made the fiscal situation much much worse. Indeed, President George W. Bush's administration is arguably the most fiscally profligate in our nation's history. And Obama is also right that high-income households can and must make a much larger tax contribution to help get our nation's finances in order.
Eloquence is no substitute for substance. We need real leadership now, not after the next election.
--Laurence Kotlikoff
But Obama's speech made no effort to find common ground with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's plan to address Medicare and Medicare. Ryan was brave enough to say exactly what he thinks needs to be done with these programs.
If you read his Medicare plan carefully, you'll see that it's highly progressive because the size of each Medicare participant's voucher is based on his/her pre-existing health conditions, and poor participants have worse health status, on average, than rich participants.
Opinion: Create jobs, don't focus on deficit
Ryan's plan also puts the government on a fixed health care spending budget when it comes to these two programs, each of which is fully capable, on its own, of bankrupting the country.
I voted for and even campaigned for the president, and my jaw drops every time I hear him speak. But eloquence is no substitute for substance. We need real leadership now, not after the next election.
Since providing basic health care is our biggest cost driver, this is the first order of business. In this regard, what we don't need is one basic health system for the elderly, one for the poor, one for the uninsured and one for the employed.
What we do need is the simple solution described at http://www.thepurplehealthplan.org/petition-list. I launched this website last week with the support of five Nobel Laureates in economics. It's a health care fix that both parties can live with and, frankly, the country cannot live without.
Had the President proposed something along these lines, which is fundamentally very similar to his own health exchanges and to Paul Ryan's plan, I'd be singing his praises and backing his reelection.
The Purple Health Plan replaces our four existing healthcare structures -- Medicare, Medicaid, the Health Exchanges, and Employer-Based Healthcare -- with one efficient, fair, and cost-controlled system. Specifically, the Purple Health Plan provides all Americans with vouchers each year to purchase a basic healthcare policy. Those with bad genes or bad luck receive larger vouchers. The vouchers are paid for by our taxes.
We pay for a basic health plan of our choosing solely with the voucher. Insurance providers of the basic plan can't turn us down. But they will also have no incentive to cherry pick because those with higher expected insurance costs will have higher vouchers. Each year a panel of doctors determines what coverages are included in the basic plan. They do so under a strict budget requiring the cost of all the vouchers not exceed 10 percent of GDP. Ten percent of GDP is close to what Germany spends in total on its healthcare system. It's plenty to provide an excellent basic healthcare system for all Americans. It's also the amount we are now spending at the federal and state levels, including implicitly via tax subsidies to employer-based health insurance.
So paying for the Purple Health Plan doesn't require new taxes. It requires reallocating resources we are now spending inefficiently to this new system. The new plan retains full private provision of healthcare. Insurance companies will complete to offer the homogeneous basic plan and will be motivated to neither under- nor over-provide care and to also offer their participants financial incentives to lower their weight, stop smoking, take their meds, and otherwise improve their health.
The Purple Health Plan is not a blue plan or a red plan. It's a plan all Americans can understand and embrace. And it's receiving endorsements by the minute. With enough signatories to the Purple Health Plan, the two parties will see the light!
So the game is not over. We don't need to spend the next two years watching the two parties point fingers and accomplish nothing. Nor do we have to wait until China and other creditors tell us the gig is up by refusing to buy our government's bonds as some leading bond traders already have decided to do.
Opinion: Can Obama resist GOP spending cuts?
If you like the plan, endorse it and forward the URL to everyone you know. It's time for we the people to be heard -- to show both parties a safe middle road that everyone can embrace and that won't drive our nation broke.
President John F. Kennedy said, "Our problems are man-made. Therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings." Let's do him proud.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Laurence Kotlikoff.
-
Takin' a break from the law books for a sec?
-
Takin' a break from the law books for a sec?
Most of my stuff is not legal research related.
-
what plan do conservatives have except to cut taxes even more for the rich???...cutting taxes recklessly is what got us into this mess...meanwhile it was revealed that many tea party members get government subsidies...but thats okay because they are well off right???
At best the statement is totally unfounded and at worst an outright lie. Read Ryan's fucking plan, or at least give it a cursory glance before you start posting non-truths, half-truths and MSNBC sponsored garbage.
Please be better than this.
-
first of all he had other major problems to tackle but he is now tackling the deficit....give him some credit...and again you are another dupe for the rich....they have to pay their fair share of taxes..you can't keep giving them tax break after tax break.....the rich have convinced guys like you that they shouldn't be taxed because they create jobs...so what????..taxes on them are the lowest they've ever been/.///its time for them to pay like you and me
Once again, Obama DID NOT define any tax rate. What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay?
This applies to people making over $250K (which ain't rich in certain parts of the country). As I said elsewhere, when people wonder how certain entertainers end up broke, I mentioned how 90s hip-hop/R&B group, TLC, ended up netting just $50,000 a piece off their biggest-selling album.
As one member, the late Lisa "Lefteye" Lopez explained, part of the reason is the government took nearly half their money in taxes.
As I also said elsewhere, this is all about covetousness and people like you, who think you're entitled to other folks' money simply because you're breathing.
-
Andreisaretard's thread title from yesterday: "OBAMA'S ASS-KICKING OF 3333 CONTINUES... speech outlines major deficit reduction"
Andreisaretard's post 5 minutes ago: Obama's speech wasn't meant to outline a detailed plan...he would need to talk for three hours to do that....he simply stated his intentions....
You're a moron.
moron seems to a favorite word for you....try saying it while looking in the mirror
-
Sick burn, yo! ::)
-
You don't know shit from shinola, I guess footing most of the bill isn't enough for you. Same cry baby shit from the over educated, under employed 40 year old virgins.
wow..my God you are useless!!!
-
At best the statement is totally unfounded and at worst an outright lie. Read Ryan's fucking plan, or at least give it a cursory glance before you start posting non-truths, half-truths and MSNBC sponsored garbage.
Please be better than this.
I love it that all of you guys are starting to curse..that means I got ya..keep it up..I AM OWNING ALL OF YOU BY MYSELF!!!!
-
Keep telling yourself that.
-
Once again, Obama DID NOT define any tax rate. What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay?
This applies to people making over $250K (which ain't rich in certain parts of the country). As I said elsewhere, when people wonder how certain entertainers end up broke, I mentioned how 90s hip-hop/R&B group, TLC, ended up netting just $50,000 a piece off their biggest-selling album.
As one member, the late Lisa "Lefteye" Lopez explained, part of the reason is the government took nearly half their money in taxes.
As I also said elsewhere, this is all about covetousness and people like you, who think you're entitled to other folks' money simply because you're breathing.
This is off-topic, but many of these entertainers wind up broke due to the lousy contracts with managers, promoters, lawyers etc, they sign..not so much due to taxation by government
case in point: when Tupac Shakur died, it was found that he was basically broke.....even his car was actually owned by his record company who let him drive it..his record company kept most of the profits....many of these artists appear to be rich but a lot of that stuff is leased/bought by the record companies who then turn around and charge the artist for all of that stuff...
-
This is off-topic, but many of these entertainers wind up broke due to the lousy contracts with managers, promoters, lawyers etc, they sign..not so much due to taxation by government
case in point: when Tupac Shakur died, it was found that he was basically broke.....even his car was actually owned by his record company who let him drive it..his record company kept most of the profits....many of these artists appear to be rich but a lot of that stuff is leased/bought by the record companies who then turn around and charge the artist for all of that stuff...
As for entertainers, Left Eye stated it herself. Of the $5.6 million they got for the sales on "Waterfalls", LaFace Records recouped their investment off the top.
Now, we have $2.6 million to split between the three of us. Well, GUESS WHAT!!! When you make that much money, you're in the 47/48/49 percent tax bracket. So, that immediately gets deducted to $1.3 million.
So, one more time: What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay? Is it HALF their salary? 70%? Let's get some numbers here!!!!
-
what plan do conservatives have except to cut taxes even more for the rich???...cutting taxes recklessly is what got us into this mess...meanwhile it was revealed that many tea party members get government subsidies...but thats okay because they are well off right???
Tax cuts DID NOT get us into this mess.
Largest Bush Deficit: FY 2008 - $455 billion
Smallest Obama Deficit: FY 2010 - $1.3 trillion
Enough said.
-
wow..my God you are useless!!!
Yeah I'm useless, your a left wing hack, who throws out some BS and them pats themself on the back for "owning" people.
Truth hurt does it?
-
Clock's ticking, Andre.
What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay?
-
As for entertainers, Left Eye stated it herself. Of the $5.6 million they got for the sales on "Waterfalls", LaFace Records recouped their investment off the top.
Now, we have $2.6 million to split between the three of us. Well, GUESS WHAT!!! When you make that much money, you're in the 47/48/49 percent tax bracket. So, that immediately gets deducted to $1.3 million.
So, one more time: What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay? Is it HALF their salary? 70%? Let's get some numbers here!!!!
its definitely more than what the are paying now....all statistics show the rich are paying less taxes than they have payed in quite some time....and their earnings are growing fast while the average American wage is going down and widening the gap between rich and poor...you can't keep having a widening disparity in what the rich and poor pay...society can't function and you will eventually have class warfare
-
Yeah I'm useless, your a left wing hack, who throws out some BS and them pats themself on the back for "owning" people.
Truth hurt does it?
I guess I'm left wing because you say so, huh?..meanwhile I supported Bush and the Iraqi invasion.....the truth hurts that someone here has critical thinking skills and can see both sides of the issue....keep trying..come back when you have something new
-
Here is the fucking retarded thing: Raising taxes on those who make more than $250000 at the most would get you $70 billion a year. You gotta be fucking kidding. You are losing a lot in innovation and lost jobs if you raise thier taxes though. Unfortunately, people do seem to support this, but that is because they havent thought it through at all. People fucking suck. They dont want to cut medicaire, social security or medicaid, but they want taxes raises on those who make more money than them. SOmebody tell these fucking retards that it is the spending and investing of other people that make more money than you that creates YOUR JOB and INCOME. FUCK!!!!
We seriously need to cut spending and taxes are high enough but it's the level of demand for goods and services(primarily from people making under 250k) which kills or creates jobs/improves the economy, raising or lowering taxes on the wealthy by a few percentage points from current levels would have a negligible effect.
-
As for entertainers, Left Eye stated it herself. Of the $5.6 million they got for the sales on "Waterfalls", LaFace Records recouped their investment off the top.
Now, we have $2.6 million to split between the three of us. Well, GUESS WHAT!!! When you make that much money, you're in the 47/48/49 percent tax bracket. So, that immediately gets deducted to $1.3 million.
So, one more time: What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay? Is it HALF their salary? 70%? Let's get some numbers here!!!!
go back to the tax rates when clinton was in office
-
go back to the tax rates when clinton was in office
Liberals were still crying about the rich not paying their "fair share" back then.
So, once and for all, what is this magic "fair share" that the rich are supposed to pay?
More importantly, why is it that rich liberals seems to have the darndest time giving more of their money to the government of their own free will?
-
I guess I'm left wing because you say so, huh?..meanwhile I supported Bush and the Iraqi invasion.....the truth hurts that someone here has critical thinking skills and can see both sides of the issue....keep trying..come back when you have something new
Well good for you, I can see both sides of the issue I just think the left way of thinking is all emotion driven with no reasoning involved, therefore it means little if nothing to me.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
Mark Twain
-
Oh Andre!!! Wherefore art thou?
-
Bama at 41 on gallup today. Approching gwb territory.
-
Oh Andre!!! Wherefore art thou?
can't stay on here all day everyday like you guys do.....unfortunately I thought you were smarter than to be a lapdog for the rich...what do you as an American get out of that??..you and I have to make up the difference when the rich get away with not paying taxes.....
-
can't stay on here all day everyday like you guys do.....unfortunately I thought you were smarter than to be a lapdog for the rich...what do you as an American get out of that??..you and I have to make up the difference when the rich get away with not paying taxes.....
How did the mneeting with the parole officer go today?
-
Bama at 41 on gallup today. Approching gwb territory.
He still got re-elected though.
If you're going to have bad poll numbers, I think this is the time to be honest... He still has 1.6 years to bounce back up.
Personally though... I have to think that from a fiscal standpoint... His discussions about taxing the top of America are probably right.
He just doesn't want to cut spending that the same time which is a mistake.
-
He still got re-elected though.
If you're going to have bad poll numbers, I think this is the time to be honest... He still has 1.6 years to bounce back up.
Personally though... I have to think that from a fiscal standpoint... His discussions about taxing the top of America are probably right.
He just doesn't want to cut spending that the same time which is a mistake.
GWB had bad numbers like this n the second term, not the first term. Obama also now has a record to run on and cant get away with the hope and change crappola in 2012 he did in 2008.
-
How did the mneeting with the parole officer go today?
;D
-
GWB had bad numbers like this n the second term, not the first term. Obama also now has a record to run on and cant get away with the hope and change crappola in 2012 he did in 2008.
you're gonna see that at the end of the day his record is not too bad and not as bad as people think it is
-
you're gonna see that at the end of the day his record is not too bad and not as bad as people think it is
Ha ha ha ha ha ha - on what issue?
-
How did the mneeting with the parole officer go today?
you're the one who was at court today...you tell me
-
can't stay on here all day everyday like you guys do.....unfortunately I thought you were smarter than to be a lapdog for the rich...what do you as an American get out of that??..you and I have to make up the difference when the rich get away with not paying taxes.....
50% of this country pays zero taxes (and the rich aren't part of that 50%). A gigantic portion of this 50% also receives benefits that come out of the pockets of the 50% that do pay taxes. I'm guessing you think that's OK.
you're gonna see that at the end of the day his record is not too bad and not as bad as people think it is
Anything that helps you sleep at night. This is the GOP's election to lose. Now, knowing the GOP, they'll probably run some shitty candidate and hand him the reelection he doesn't deserve.
I can't believe you're actually saying "it won't be as bad as people think it is as" as gas prices approach $5, unemployment's still at 10%, food prices are rising across the board, we're mired in three wars and on and on. STFU lemming.
-
can't stay on here all day everyday like you guys do.....unfortunately I thought you were smarter than to be a lapdog for the rich...what do you as an American get out of that??..you and I have to make up the difference when the rich get away with not paying taxes.....
Answering this question takes a matter of seconds. You've been DUCKING it the entire time.
What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay?
I'm not a lapdog for anyone (OK, except my wife). Your statement is as false as George Washington's teeth. The rich do pay taxes and much higher, in terms of percentage of income, than you or I do.
Again, using the TLC example, you think it's cool for someone to take HALF your money in taxes?
-
Article 1
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Wow looks like the progressive tax is unconstitutional.
-
50% of this country pays zero taxes (and the rich aren't part of that 50%). A gigantic portion of this 50% also receives benefits that come out of the pockets of the 50% that do pay taxes. I'm guessing you think that's OK.
Anything that helps you sleep at night. This is the GOP's election to lose. Now, knowing the GOP, they'll probably run some shitty candidate and hand him the reelection he doesn't deserve.
I can't believe you're actually saying "it won't be as bad as people think it is as" as gas prices approach $5, unemployment's still at 10%, food prices are rising across the board, we're mired in three wars and on and on. STFU lemming.
ya know..you actually made some good points here that I agree with...you are right that there are a lot of people in this country who are poor and who pay no taxes and they also should be placed back on the tax rolls as well along with the rich....
you are also right that its the GOP/s election to lose and they WILL wind up putting up some dumb-ass candidate who will blow it (like Trump or Romney)..I still think McCain could have beaten Obama had he not taken Sarah Palin
Gas prices are not Obama's fault but if unemployment goes back up to 10 % Obama will have a serious problem
you see?..unlike you I can actually look at the other side
-
ya know..you actually made some good points here that I agree with...you are right that there are a lot of people in this country who are poor and who pay no taxes and they also should be placed back on the tax rolls as well along with the rich....
you are also right that its the GOP/s election to lose and they WILL wind up putting up some dumb-ass candidate who will blow it (like Trump or Romney)..I still think McCain could have beaten Obama had he not taken Sarah Palin
Gas prices are not Obama's fault but if unemployment goes back up to 10 % Obama will have a serious problem
you see?..unlike you I can actually look at the other side
Let see if you can actually ANSWER A QUESTION, that question being......
What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay?
-
;)
-
ya know..you actually made some good points here that I agree with...you are right that there are a lot of people in this country who are poor and who pay no taxes and they also should be placed back on the tax rolls as well along with the rich....
you are also right that its the GOP/s election to lose and they WILL wind up putting up some dumb-ass candidate who will blow it (like Trump or Romney)..I still think McCain could have beaten Obama had he not taken Sarah Palin
Gas prices are not Obama's fault but if unemployment goes back up to 10 % Obama will have a serious problem
you see?..unlike you I can actually look at the other side
and it only took you 4 pages...::)
-
;)
Lot of clients this week, counselor?
-
Lot of clients this week, counselor?
trolling isnt welcome here...
move along there nancy ;)
-
Do you believe that 333... is a lawyer?
-
Do you believe that 333... is a lawyer?
its obvious you dont but again trolling isnt welcome here no matter what you think he does for a living...
Go elsewhere if youre just going to troll.
-
Ill wager any amount w anyone on this board as to my credentials. From birth to present date, unlike obama.
-
its obvious you dont but again trolling isnt welcome here no matter what you think he does for a living...
Go elsewhere if youre just going to troll.
I'll take that as a no.
-
I'll take that as a no.
dont know how you got that from my post? my post was simply to say what you think about him doesnt justify your idiocy in trolling a board that doesnt welcome trolls.
why dont you take him up on his offer and wager your posting ability here on getbig?
Ill wager any amount w anyone on this board as to my credentials. From birth to present date, unlike obama.
it would be nice to be rid of at least one troll
-
Let see if you can actually ANSWER A QUESTION, that question being......
What is this supposedly "fair" share that the rich are obligated to pay?
not for me to determine....but a lot of economic experts believe that taxes are too low on the rich as a percentage of income..taxes are also too low on a lot of corporations (especially the oil companies)....we have to raise more revenue...bottom line....the rich are going to have to pay more no matter how you slice it..sorry to bust your balloon
-
Do you believe that 333... is a lawyer?
NO
-
Andre - we both live in the bronx. Ill wager you yankee tickets on a bet. Yes or no?
-
Andre - we both live in the bronx. Ill wager you yankee tickets on a bet. Yes or no?
wager on what?..that you're a Lawyer?
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
I don't know if I should take that wager..although I'm tempted..your credentials may be as fake as you claim Obama's to be ;)
-
Tell me what you want for me to prove it?
-
lol i can vouch for 33, he is indeed a lawyer. he's emotional and displays poor judgement in his political candidates, but he does nothing but tell the truth here.
-
So says the guy who voted for bob barr, kneepads obama, said crist would be the 2012 gop nominee, etc.
-
not for me to determine....but a lot of economic experts believe that taxes are too low on the rich as a percentage of income..taxes are also too low on a lot of corporations (especially the oil companies)....we have to raise more revenue...bottom line....the rich are going to have to pay more no matter how you slice it..sorry to bust your balloon
Revenue isn't the issue; it's SPENDING, pure and simple. And, why are you whining about paying a "fair share" when you can't (and neither can any other liberal for that matter) even define what that is?
The bottom line is you and other people think you have the right to spend other people's money. And, if you're cracked enough to think that Obama (or any other politician) is going to stick it to the rich, you've been indulging in that sticky green.
-
dont know how you got that from my post? my post was simply to say what you think about him doesnt justify your idiocy in trolling a board that doesnt welcome trolls.
why dont you take him up on his offer and wager your posting ability here on getbig?
it would be nice to be rid of at least one troll
Suck one.
I'll say whatever I want.
You don't get to define the question.
Understand?
-
How much are we betting?
-
Suck one.
I'll say whatever I want.
You don't get to define the question.
Understand?
have fun in time out bottom bitch!!!
if you continue the way you are thats where youre trolling ass shall be ;)
-
I think this phrase says it all, when it comes to Obama and his whiny class-warfare speech, pitifully disguised as a spiel about his budget plan:
So, the purpose of government is to take my money, filter it through a bunch of agencies and contractors, each taking their cut, and then give a small fraction of it back to me to spend on "approved" services. Gives new meaning to the phrase "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I wish they would stop helping.
This is from a WSJ article I will post a bit later.
-
Revenue isn't the issue; it's SPENDING, pure and simple. And, why are you whining about paying a "fair share" when you can't (and neither can any other liberal for that matter) even define what that is?
The bottom line is you and other people think you have the right to spend other people's money. And, if you're cracked enough to think that Obama (or any other politician) is going to stick it to the rich, you've been indulging in that sticky green.
well I pose the same question to you..how do you know the rich are paying ENOUGH???..you don't ..so my argument is as valid as yours...
-
Did The President's Disastrous Budget Speech Cause The Shock US Downgrade?
Business Insider ^ | 04/18/2011 | Joe Weisenthal
________________________ ________________________ _____-
The merits of the S&P outlook downgrade aside -- we're skeptical -- it's interesting that the official downgrade announcement specifically talks about the political events of the past few weeks: The Ryan Plan and the Obama speech.
One charge that's been leveled against the President is that he didn't actually introduce a plan, but rather gave a campaign speech centered around accusing the GOP of throwing grandma and grandpa underneath the bus.
As such, the two parties have confirmed that they're extremely far apart, and it's this that the S&P seems to be reacting to.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
-
100 Percent Tax on Those Earning $500K or More Leaves U.S. With $839B Deficit
CNSNews ^ | April 18, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - When he presented his plan for dealing with the national debt last week, President Barack Obama suggested a number of ways he would like to increase taxes on people he referred to as “millionaires and billionaires.”
However, recently released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service indicate that taxing away 100 percent of the income of every American who earned $500,000 or more in 2009 would still have left the United States with a massive annual deficit.
In fact, in tax year 2009 (the last year for which IRS has published statistics), the combined gross income of all Americans earning $500,000 per year or more was about $1.03 trillion ($1,029,256,075,000.00) of which these Americans paid $256.7 billion ($256,699,499,000.00) in federal income taxes.
That left this group of Americans about $773 billion ($772,556,576,000.00) in income that the federal government had not taken away in income taxes.
Also during tax year 2009, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the national debt increased by $1.61 trillion ($1,611,544,812,899.90).
If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009--and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans--that would have closed the federal deficit for the year to $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90).
After taxing away 100 percent of the income of those earning $500,000 or more in 2009, the Obama administration would still have needed to increase taxes on Americans earning less than $500,000 by a total of $839 billion--just to balance federal accounts for the year.
-
well I pose the same question to you..how do you know the rich are paying ENOUGH???..you don't ..so my argument is as valid as yours...
See below for answer:
100 Percent Tax on Those Earning $500K or More Leaves U.S. With $839B Deficit
CNSNews ^ | April 18, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - When he presented his plan for dealing with the national debt last week, President Barack Obama suggested a number of ways he would like to increase taxes on people he referred to as “millionaires and billionaires.”
However, recently released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service indicate that taxing away 100 percent of the income of every American who earned $500,000 or more in 2009 would still have left the United States with a massive annual deficit.
In fact, in tax year 2009 (the last year for which IRS has published statistics), the combined gross income of all Americans earning $500,000 per year or more was about $1.03 trillion ($1,029,256,075,000.00) of which these Americans paid $256.7 billion ($256,699,499,000.00) in federal income taxes.
That left this group of Americans about $773 billion ($772,556,576,000.00) in income that the federal government had not taken away in income taxes.
Also during tax year 2009, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the national debt increased by $1.61 trillion ($1,611,544,812,899.90).
If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009--and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans--that would have closed the federal deficit for the year to $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90).
After taxing away 100 percent of the income of those earning $500,000 or more in 2009, the Obama administration would still have needed to increase taxes on Americans earning less than $500,000 by a total of $839 billion--just to balance federal accounts for the year.
3333 owning the clueless andretheobamanutlicker.
-
Not hard to do. I await Straw Man, Benny, Andre, 240, Blacken, et al providing a rebuttal.
-
Obama's Tax Hypocrisy
Townhall.com ^ | April 19, 2011 | Lurita Doan
The Obama Administration’s call for greater taxes and “shared sacrifice” is hollow and morally bankrupt. President Obama wants to convince the nation that many Americans, most of them small business owners, must pay more tax as “their fair share” of huge, annual deficits. What Mr. Obama never mentions is that he has surrounded himself with key advisors and selected key members of his Administration that are tax cheats. Never before has an Administration been so wholly composed of senior officials that push so stridently for increasing taxes on Americans, while they avoid any personal responsibility for paying their own personal taxes. Seemingly, if you are a member of the Obama Administration, your “fair share” of the national tax burden is zero. Instead, taxes are an instrument of “shared sacrifice” to be loaded onto someone else.
First some numbers. Some 41 different Senior Obama Administration Officials have been identified as tax cheats, owing over $840 million in back taxes. Many of Obama’s key officials that are responsible for the economy and have been given wide powers in tax policy are themselves, tax cheats and tax avoiders. The most notable of these is Timmy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury and nominal head of the IRS, who utilized the “INTUIT TurboTax-is-not intuitive-I didn’t-realize-I was-supposed-to-pay-taxes” defense. Once exposed, Obama dismissed Geithner’s tax cheating, and had no problem with him heading the Treasury/IRS. In fact, Mr. Obama continued to stock his Administration with tax cheats and tax avoiders, seeing no contradiction in a advocating policies that call for ever greater taxes on other Americans, while so many of his own cabinet and key economic advisors have failed to pay.
Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, used the “I’m-just-a-wife-how-can-I-be-held-responsible-for-knowing-what-my-husband-is-doing” defense, and after paying back taxes on the few years for which they were fingered, now heads the team shaping Obama’s labor taxes policies. Ron Kirk, Obama’s Trade representative, had tax problems, as did Kathleen Sibelius, current HHS Secretary, who leads the push for the Obamacare atrocity, and unabashedly calls for greater taxes and burdens on honest Americans to fund the dodgy scheme.
There are also tax problems with the appointees at levels below the cabinet, such as Capricia Marshall (Chief of Protocol), with the “post-office-ate-my-tax return” defense or Lael Brainerd (Treasury Undersecretary). In addition to the individual tax cheats currently serving in the Obama administration, there have been a startling number of nominees who have withdrawn their nomination after being publicly exposed as having tax and other issues. A quick review includes Tom Daschle (HHS Nominee), Nancy Killefer (OMB nominee), Bill Richardson, and Caroline Atkinson (Treasury-International Affairs), just to name a few.
Some of the Obama appointees’ tax problems may not have been as despicable as others, but just look at the number of them. Has any previous Administration been so infested with tax cheats? Nor does President Obama seem to think tax cheating and tax avoidance are detriments to public service for he continues to select nominees that are similarly “tax challenged”.
Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric was selected by Obama to lead his Counsel on Jobs and Competitiveness this past January. Immelt has boasted of GE’s staggering $14.2 billion in profits and that it paid no taxes. Yet, Immelt feels right at home pushing the Obama line that other Americans need to pay more in taxes to fund the bloated government that Obama has added.
The Obama Administration seems to be filled with so many tax cheats and tax avoiders that it has surrendered any credibility on the issue of increasing taxes. President Obama remains undeterred by the poor example set by his own Administration and brazenly announced that “we are beginning to crack down on Americans who are bending or breaking the rules, and we're helping to ensure that all Americans are contributing their fair share—and not let some citizens and businesses dodge their tax responsibility, while ordinary Americans pick up the slack.”
Fine words, but what the President did not mention is that his Administration sets a terrible example and is most in need of a “crack down”. Indeed, recent reports estimate the full amount of taxes owed by all members of the Obama Administration is over $3 billion.
Americans are saddled with the sad example of a President that seems to feel no reluctance in calling on others to pay more taxes, even as his own Administration is increasingly composed of tax cheats. Nor is the President deterred in the use of increasingly hostile rhetoric used to describe honest opponents (most of whom do pay their annual taxes), questioning their patriotism, fairness, and compassion.
Obama’s tax policy seems aimed at protecting his own loyalists and pushing responsibility for taxes onto others. One thing is clear: Obama can always count on folks who don’t pay their taxes to support higher taxes for others because it sure seems they know they won’t have to pay. If Obama wants to restore his credibility in the debate on taxes, he should first get rid of the many close advisors that have cheated on their taxes, and require all those serving in his Administration to pay what they owe.
Until he does so, the strange and tortured logic that President Obama uses to push for other Americans to pay “their fair share” must be rejected. Put simply, the Obama Administration has no credibility to talk about tax policy, much less make any moral argument about who should be paying more.
-
See below for answer:
3333 owning the clueless andretheobamanutlicker.
sorry, but neither you nor 3333 have owned anyone....no one is saying the federal government debt would be wiped away and that the budget would be balanced....but the lost revenue that we don't get from the millionaires, billionaires, and corporations has to be made up somewhere and this is done by BORROWING.....thus the money we don't collect fairly from the above gets borrowed from China and then it now costs us more due to the interest payments....and guess who pays those interest payments?..you and I..NOT THE RICH.....so you guys sit on here and champion the rich....but they are actually they are laughing in your face as they walk to the bank...we give them tax breaks which fattens their wallets and then we also pay the interest on the debt which we accumulate due to us not taxing them enough....without all the tax cuts guys..THEY WOULD STILL BE RICH....don't cry for them
-
sorry, but neither you nor 3333 have owned anyone....no one is saying the federal government debt would be wiped away and that the budget would be balanced....but the lost revenue that we don't get from the millionaires, billionaires, and corporations has to be made up somewhere and this is done by BORROWING.....thus the money we don't collect fairly from the above gets borrowed from China and then it now costs us more due to the interest payments....and guess who pays those interest payments?..you and I..NOT THE RICH.....so you guys sit on here and champion the rich....but they are actually they are laughing in your face as they walk to the bank...we give them tax breaks which fattens their wallets and then we also pay the interest on the debt which we accumulate due to us not taxing them enough....without all the tax cuts guys..THEY WOULD STILL BE RICH....don't cry for them
HOW ABOUT CUTTING FUCKING SPENDING YOU DOUCHE?
-
HOW ABOUT CUTTING FUCKING SPENDING YOU DOUCHE?
sure we can cut spending....but are Americans really ready for the reduced services they would have to live with"???....look at NYC..we cut spending and we cut spending on the MTA mass transit system as well...now the trains are crowded basically all day long now...there is no off-peak anymore...I used to be able to get a seat after rush hour...now I find myself standing....just an inconvenience I can live with..but also now whole bus routes have been cut and it now takes longer to catch a bus just to go a few blocks....imagine this on a nation-wide massive scale not just with public transit but with hospital visits, waiting for court dates, waiting to get a policeman to respond, waiting for firemen to put out fires, waiting for EMT's to come save you from a heart attack, etc....
Can we live with this..yes..do we really want to though???
-
sure we can cut spending....but are Americans really ready for the reduced services they would have to live with"???....look at NYC..we cut spending and we cut spending on the MTA mass transit system as well...now the trains are crowded basically all day long now...there is no off-peak anymore...I used to be able to get a seat after rush hour...now I find myself standing....just an inconvenience I can live with..but also now whole bus routes have been cut and it now takes longer to catch a bus just to go a few blocks....imagine this on a nation-wide massive scale not just with public transit but with hospital visits, waiting for court dates, waiting to get a policeman to respond, waiting for firemen to put out fires, waiting for EMT's to come save you from a heart attack, etc....
Can we live with this..yes..do we really want to though???
Its called math. Its call too any overpaid union fucks doing nothing and them pissing the money away.
-
Its called math. Its call too any overpaid union fucks doing nothing and them pissing the money away.
its really not the salaries of the unions that are killing us...its the pensions we are saddled with which come from fraud and abuse of power
-
its really not the salaries of the unions that are killing us...its the pensions we are saddled with which come from fraud and abuse of power
Actually, it's both.
Unions are requiring companies to pay people 30 dollars an hour for a 10 dollar an hour job or people walk off en mass. Then, you have pensions which do have fraud and abuse, but wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for a union requirement.
So it's pretty much everyones fault... A fucking car shouldn't cost 30 grand to make and the guy putting bolts on an engine shouldn't be making 30 bucks an hour to do that shit.
AND the pensions are fucking ridiculous.
-
Actually, it's both.
Unions are requiring companies to pay people 30 dollars an hour for a 10 dollar an hour job or people walk off en mass. Then, you have pensions which do have fraud and abuse, but wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for a union requirement.
So it's pretty much everyones fault... A fucking car shouldn't cost 30 grand to make and the guy putting bolts on an engine shouldn't be making 30 bucks an hour to do that shit.
AND the pensions are fucking ridiculous.
I can see your point, but companies can pass on the cost..the back end pensions are killing us because that comes 100% out of public money and city and state stocks...and when the stock market is down, the city and state kick in the difference...that "difference" comes from your check and mine. we are paying people to sit around and the pensions are bogusly high due to claimed "disabilities" which pushes pensions higher TAX FREE
-
Why Obama should pay more in taxes
Apr 20, 2011 09:44 EDT
obama | taxes | US Politics
President Barack Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, and surely is correct that this must be part of any serious plan to control the national debt. Consider the case of a wealthy couple who made $1.7 million in 2010, yet paid only 26.2 percent in federal income taxes — though the top rate supposedly is 35 percent, and the president says that figure should rise to 39.6 percent. The well-off couple in question is Barack and Michelle Obama, whose tax returns, just released, show they paid substantially less than the president says others should pay.
If Obama is in earnest about wanting increased taxes on the wealthy, then he should send the United States Treasury $182,998. That’s the difference between his Form 1040 Line 60 (“This is your total tax”) and what he would have owed at the higher rate (plus limits on itemized deductions) he himself advocates.
So why doesn’t he tax himself more? The Form 1040, after all, only stipulates the minimum tax an American must pay. More is always welcome. Obama should write a check to the United States Treasury for $182,998.
Wealthy people who say the rich should pay higher taxes — Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have joined Obama in declaring this — are free to tax themselves. If you believe the top rate should rise to 39.6 percent (Obama) or 50 percent (Buffett), then calculate the difference and send a check for that amount to the Treasury. Of course no one individual doing this, even a billionaire, would have much impact on the deficit. But if rich people who say they believe in higher taxes were willing to practice what they preach, this would prove their sincerity, making legislation on the point more likely.
“The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more,” President Obama said last week about debt and taxes. So why didn’t he? The president is covered by his own definition of “fortunate,” since his proposal calls for higher taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000.
Compared to the tax returns of the rich generally, the president and First Lady look good. They gave $245,000 to charity in 2010, or 14 percent of their income — admirable generosity, and a better number than posted by most recent presidents and vice-presidents.
Figures from the Internal Revenue Service show that in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the wealthy paid only about 17 percent of their income in federal taxes — less than the president’s 26 percent in 2010, and much less than the official top rate of 35 percent for the bulk of a well-off filer’s income.
That the wealthy as a group are paying 17 percent of their income as federal income taxes, down from 26 percent from the wealthy as a group in 1992, is a result of the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, and extended under Obama last year.
The slashing of taxes for the wealthy is well-known — but Bush’s cut reduced taxes for typical people, too. The lower part of the rate structure is now so low that in 2008, 45 percent of American households paid no federal income taxes at all, according to the Tax Policy Center. Americans as a whole paid an average of just 9.2 percent of their income as federal income taxes.
Both figures are postwar lows. The Tea Party claim that federal taxes are rising is, simply, factually untrue.
Falling taxes for average people have played as much a role in the ballooning federal debt as have falling taxes for the rich. In turn, soaking the rich cannot, alone, tame the national-debt monster.
Calculations based on IRS figures suggest — only rough estimates are possible, as tax laws can change economic behavior — that raising the amount of income actually paid as taxes by the rich from the current 17 percent to 26 percent, what the Obamas paid, would bring in about $200 billion a year in fresh federal revenues. Increasing the figure to about 30 percent (likely actual result of the tax changes Obama advocates) would raise the new-revenue total to about $300 billion annually.
Such amounts would ease the deficit, but hardly represent a cure — government red ink is projected to hit $1.6 trillion this fiscal year. There simply isn’t a long-term deficit solution based only on taxing the rich. Social Security benefit cuts, and more taxes on the middle class, will be needed too.
Sustained 5-to-6 percent GDP growth would solve the deficit problem painlessly, by raising revenue without tax increases or Social Security cuts. While such growth, roughly double the current number, is possible, it seems unlikely.
Though tax increases alone cannot put the country’s fiscal house in order, the president should set a better example on his own tax returns.
That $245,000 the Obamas gave to charity, for example — deducting it on their Schedule A reduced their federal tax bill by roughly $85,000, and cut their Illinois state tax bill too. But you’re not required to deduct charitable giving, or to claim any tax favor. Deductions and tax credits are options. If you think the government deserves more of your income, don’t claim them.
Obama said last year that itemized deductions for the wealthy should be phased out — then on his own tax return, claimed a huge itemized deduction. Until those who advocate higher taxes for the well-off practice what they preach, the national debt situation may only get worse.
-
Democrats Join "Threat" to Hold Up Debt Ceiling Vote Without Spending Cuts
fox news ^ | 4/21/2011 | fox news
President Obama is starting to feel pressure from his own party to tie spending cuts to a vote to raise the debt limit, even as the administration expresses confidence that Congress will ultimately raise the cap.
The latest moderate Democrat to draw a line in the sand is Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who told members of a local political group Wednesday that he'll need to see a commitment to cut spending and overhaul the tax code in order to vote to raise the $14.3 trillion cap. The government is expected to reach that ceiling by mid-May.
"What I've told anyone who will listen to me in Washington, including my leadership, is that I'm not going to vote for that unless there is a real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction," Pryor told the Political Animals Club at its monthly meeting at the governor's mansion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Why Obama should pay more in taxes
Apr 20, 2011 09:44 EDT
obama | taxes | US Politics
President Barack Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, and surely is correct that this must be part of any serious plan to control the national debt. Consider the case of a wealthy couple who made $1.7 million in 2010, yet paid only 26.2 percent in federal income taxes — though the top rate supposedly is 35 percent, and the president says that figure should rise to 39.6 percent. The well-off couple in question is Barack and Michelle Obama, whose tax returns, just released, show they paid substantially less than the president says others should pay.
If Obama is in earnest about wanting increased taxes on the wealthy, then he should send the United States Treasury $182,998. That’s the difference between his Form 1040 Line 60 (“This is your total tax”) and what he would have owed at the higher rate (plus limits on itemized deductions) he himself advocates.
So why doesn’t he tax himself more? The Form 1040, after all, only stipulates the minimum tax an American must pay. More is always welcome. Obama should write a check to the United States Treasury for $182,998.
Wealthy people who say the rich should pay higher taxes — Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have joined Obama in declaring this — are free to tax themselves. If you believe the top rate should rise to 39.6 percent (Obama) or 50 percent (Buffett), then calculate the difference and send a check for that amount to the Treasury. Of course no one individual doing this, even a billionaire, would have much impact on the deficit. But if rich people who say they believe in higher taxes were willing to practice what they preach, this would prove their sincerity, making legislation on the point more likely.
“The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more,” President Obama said last week about debt and taxes. So why didn’t he? The president is covered by his own definition of “fortunate,” since his proposal calls for higher taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000.
Compared to the tax returns of the rich generally, the president and First Lady look good. They gave $245,000 to charity in 2010, or 14 percent of their income — admirable generosity, and a better number than posted by most recent presidents and vice-presidents.
Figures from the Internal Revenue Service show that in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the wealthy paid only about 17 percent of their income in federal taxes — less than the president’s 26 percent in 2010, and much less than the official top rate of 35 percent for the bulk of a well-off filer’s income.
That the wealthy as a group are paying 17 percent of their income as federal income taxes, down from 26 percent from the wealthy as a group in 1992, is a result of the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, and extended under Obama last year.
The slashing of taxes for the wealthy is well-known — but Bush’s cut reduced taxes for typical people, too. The lower part of the rate structure is now so low that in 2008, 45 percent of American households paid no federal income taxes at all, according to the Tax Policy Center. Americans as a whole paid an average of just 9.2 percent of their income as federal income taxes.
Both figures are postwar lows. The Tea Party claim that federal taxes are rising is, simply, factually untrue.
Falling taxes for average people have played as much a role in the ballooning federal debt as have falling taxes for the rich. In turn, soaking the rich cannot, alone, tame the national-debt monster.
Calculations based on IRS figures suggest — only rough estimates are possible, as tax laws can change economic behavior — that raising the amount of income actually paid as taxes by the rich from the current 17 percent to 26 percent, what the Obamas paid, would bring in about $200 billion a year in fresh federal revenues. Increasing the figure to about 30 percent (likely actual result of the tax changes Obama advocates) would raise the new-revenue total to about $300 billion annually.
Such amounts would ease the deficit, but hardly represent a cure — government red ink is projected to hit $1.6 trillion this fiscal year. There simply isn’t a long-term deficit solution based only on taxing the rich. Social Security benefit cuts, and more taxes on the middle class, will be needed too.
Sustained 5-to-6 percent GDP growth would solve the deficit problem painlessly, by raising revenue without tax increases or Social Security cuts. While such growth, roughly double the current number, is possible, it seems unlikely.
Though tax increases alone cannot put the country’s fiscal house in order, the president should set a better example on his own tax returns.
That $245,000 the Obamas gave to charity, for example — deducting it on their Schedule A reduced their federal tax bill by roughly $85,000, and cut their Illinois state tax bill too. But you’re not required to deduct charitable giving, or to claim any tax favor. Deductions and tax credits are options. If you think the government deserves more of your income, don’t claim them.
Obama said last year that itemized deductions for the wealthy should be phased out — then on his own tax return, claimed a huge itemized deduction. Until those who advocate higher taxes for the well-off practice what they preach, the national debt situation may only get worse.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in philosophy; the search for a moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
-
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in philosophy; the search for a moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern liberal is engaged in the moral justification for theft, laziness, and covetousness - MCWAY
If any would not work, neither should he eat - The Apostle Paul, 1st century A.D.
;D
-
The modern liberal is engaged in the moral justification for theft, laziness, and covetousness - MCWAY
[/i]If any would not work, neither should he eat[/i] - The Apostle Paul, 1st century A.D.
;D
Um, good fairy tale quote.
That should make up for any credibility problems you may have had.
-
Um, good fairy tale quote.
That should make up for any credibility problems you may have had.
you said it before I did..you are really desperate if you are quoting the Bible ;)
-
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in philosophy; the search for a moral justification for selfishness. -John Kenneth Galbraith
So you believe that is acceptable for the government to take from a person who works and give it someone who doesn't? See I was always under the impression that if someone wants to be charitable it is their decision not some jack wagon in DC making said decision.
-
So you believe that is acceptable for the government to take from a person who works and give it someone who doesn't? See I was always under the impression that if someone wants to be charitable it is their decision not some jack wagon in DC making said decision.
you are the biggest dickface on here ..,you know goddamn well that the government must do this in order to provide services for everyone....all of our taxes go into a general fund for the betterment of all..what do you want the government to do?..hold your personal tax money in an account for only your personal use???
-
Commie.
-
you are the biggest dickface on here ..,you know goddamn well that the government must do this in order to provide services for everyone....all of our taxes go into a general fund for the betterment of all..what do you want the government to do?..hold your personal tax money in an account for only your personal use???
Fuck you , you know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about you just want to play your horse shit moral high ground game and avoid the question as usual. I am well aware taxes have to be paid for services...... bankrolling able bodied people who would rather hang out on the corner with a 40 is something else all together. The betterment of all my ass, all these entitlements are used to buy votes, generation after generation of people on the government tit. I'll tell what the government is supposed to do govern within the confines of their constitutional authority.
-
Gare is right. Lazy slobs who pay no taxes, Union fat cat gangsters in the public sector and Phony "Green" Initiatives should be entitled to as much free money as the Federal reserve can print until the country is bankrupt and everyone is equally poor.
Anyone who disagrees is selfish. Until we are all poor and completely dependent on the government, America's very existence is criminal.
-
Gare is right. Lazy slobs who pay no taxes, Union fat cat gangsters in the public sector and Phony "Green" Initiatives should be entitled to as much free money as the Federal reserve can print until the country is bankrupt and everyone is equally poor.
Anyone who disagrees is selfish. Until we are all poor and completely dependent on the government, America's very existence is criminal.
Thanks for backing me up, bro.
-
Budget Panel: Obama Deficit Plan Saves Less Than Advertised
Fox News ^ | April 21, 2011 | Fox News
A leading panel of budget experts estimated Thursday that President Obama's latest spending plan does not save as much money as the White House initially claimed and is about $1.5 trillion more expensive than the Republican plan.
Since he delivered a major fiscal policy address last week, Obama and other officials have touted that the White House plan would cut $4 trillion over 12 years. Using that figure, they've claimed it's very similar to a House Republican plan which supposedly would cut $4.4 trillion over 10 years.
But given that most budget outlines use a 10-year window, as required by law, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget tried to offer an apples-to-apples comparison -- and determined Obama's proposal would actually cut deficits by $2.5 trillion over the next decade. It credited the president for "moving the ball forward," but said that based on Congressional Budget Office assumptions, the plan doesn't do enough to tackle the debt crisis.
"It appears unlikely that the policies proposed in the president's framework would be sufficient to reduce debt to a manageable level," they wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Um, good fairy tale quote.
That should make up for any credibility problems you may have had.
Hate to break it to you, but the apostle Paul is hardly a fairy tale. He's a historical figure. So, as usual, your feeble little blurbs don't hold up to scrutiny.
And, it doesn't save you from addressing the issue of liberalism, being based on class envy, laziness and covetousness from people, wanting to mooch off the labor of hard-working people.
-
Hate to break it to you, but the apostle Paul is hardly a fairy tale. He's a historical figure. So, as usual, your feeble little blurbs don't hold up to scrutiny.
And, it doesn't save you from addressing the issue of liberalism, being based on class envy, laziness and covetousness from people, wanting to mooch off the labor of hard-working people.
Have you ever had sex (with a woman)?
-
Thanks for backing me up, bro.
Anytime sport ;)
-
On the debt ceiling:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. \" can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
-
Have you ever had sex (with a woman)?
It depends!! Does your mama count??
-
Have you ever had sex (with a woman)?
LMFAO
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gare-bear
someone who is very feminine outwardly and lacks "testicular fortitude"
why not address the quote he made? instead of simply ridiculing the person who made it?
that doesnt make the quote any less valid you know...or i guess you didnt...
-
April 25, 2011
The First Adult -- AWOL
By Robert Samuelson
www.realclearpolitics.co m
WASHINGTON -- If you've wondered why it's so hard to subdue budget deficits, you should consult a new study from the Congressional Budget Office called "Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options" (free at www.cbo.gov). You'll learn from its 240 pages that the deficits definitely can be curbed. The CBO presents 105 policies (it doesn't endorse them) that would shrink deficits by trillions of dollars over the next decade. You'll also learn -- surprise! -- that most choices are political poison.
Suppose we increased the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents a gallon, from 18.4 cents to 43.4 cents. That would raise $291 billion over the decade from 2012 to 2021, estimates the CBO. Or we could advance the ages for early and full Social Security benefits; one suggestion is to raise them (now 62 and 66) by two months a year until reaching predetermined targets (say, 64 and 70). The CBO reckons the decade's savings at about $264 billion. How about slowly moving Medicare's eligibility age from 65 to 67. The savings: $125 billion.
Are we finished? Nowhere near. At most, these crowd pleasers would make noticeable dents. Recall that the deficits total almost $10 trillion over the next decade under President Obama's original 2012 budget. That's the point: even discounting the effects of the deep recession, prospective deficits are so large that they can't be cured by tinkering. We should be asking basic questions:
-- How big a government do we want? For four decades, federal spending has averaged 21 percent of gross domestic product. An aging population and high health costs mean that average spending, as a share of GDP, will rise by a third or more in the next 10 to 15 years if today's programs simply continue.
-- Who deserves government subsidies and how much? About 55 percent of spending goes to individuals, including the elderly, veterans, farmers, students, the disabled and the poor.
-- How much, if at all, should social spending be allowed to squeeze national defense?
-- If taxes rise, how much and on whom? What taxes would least hurt economic growth?
We aren't having this debate, and President Obama is mainly to blame. His recent budget speech at George Washington University was a telling model of evasion, contradiction and deception. He warned that by 2025 present tax levels would suffice only to pay for "Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the interest we owe on our debt. ... Every other national priority -- education, transportation, even our national security -- will (be paid) with borrowed money." He noted that businesses may not invest in a country that seems "unable to balance its books."
Fine. But Obama has no plan to balance the budget -- ever. He asserted "every kind of spending (is) on the table." But every kind of spending is not on the table. He virtually ruled out cutting Social Security, the government's biggest program (2011 spending: $727 billion). For example, Social Security is excluded from a proposed "trigger" that would automatically reduce spending and raise taxes if certain deficit targets weren't met. He also put Medicare (2011 spending: $572 billion) largely off-limits.
The president keeps promoting an "adult conversation" about the budget, but that can't happen if the First Adult doesn't play his part. Obama is eager to be all things to all people. He's against the debt and its adverse consequences, but he's for preserving Social Security and Medicare without major changes. He's for "tough cuts," but he's against saying what they are and defending them. He pronounces ambitious goals without saying how they'd be reached. Mainly, he's for scoring political points against Republicans.
Deficit politics are inherently unpopular. One way -- maybe the only way -- to break today's deadlock is to alter public opinion so that some government benefits are seen as unnecessary or illegitimate and some taxes are seen as fair burden-sharing.
Given better health, longer life expectancy and wealthier elderly, why shouldn't Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages be raised and means-testing broadened? The president doesn't broach this debate. Farmers receive about $15 billion a year in crop subsidies to help offset the insecurities of weather and fluctuating prices. Considering that volatile markets impose similar insecurities on many Americans, why do farmers deserve special protection? The president doesn't engage that debate. Might not a higher gasoline tax reduce budget deficits and oil imports? Obama is silent there, too.
All this may be politically shrewd. Voters disdain hard choices. Liberal pundits loved Obama's speech. But another audience is less impressed -- global money managers. The Financial Times' respected columnist Gillian Tett recently asked whether the administration's "reassuring patter on debt" could be believed. Not entirely, she concluded. Shortly thereafter, Standard & Poor's warned that it might downgrade U.S. government debt. Obama is flirting with trouble, even if he doesn't realize it.
-
It depends!! Does your mama count??
I think McWay needs to stick with arguing about the questionable effdectiveness of supplements...he is way over his head here on the political board :D
-
Did the deficit go away or something? Last I knew -the IMF was warning us and S&P about to downgrade out debt.
-
Did the deficit go away or something? Last I knew -the IMF was warning us and S&P about to downgrade out debt.
thats true..but Obama has started down the road to major cuts in spending
-
thats true..but Obama has started down the road to major cuts in spending
Uh, what?
-
Uh, what?
did n't you see the cuts he made during the budget deal?????....come on you can't possibly be that dense....he and the Repubs did some major cuts.....its just a start...I think he will cut more in the coming year
-
did n't you see the cuts he made during the budget deal?????....come on you can't possibly be that dense....he and the Repubs did some major cuts.....its just a start...I think he will cut more in the coming year
A start? How much have we borrowed since then?
-
A start? How much have we borrowed since then?
I don't know..ask the Republicans ..they got us into this mess...Bill Clinton left us with huge surplusses
-
I don't know..ask the Republicans ..they got us into this mess...Bill Clinton left us with huge surplusses
Whatever moron. There was never a surplus.
-
Whatever moron. There was never a surplus.
now you really are out of your mind......Clinton left us huge surplusses......of course he got a little lucky due to the boom caused by the internet.....but nevertheless Bush squandered this through his unneeded tax cut , unfunded wars and drug prescription bill....I say this as a Bush supporter...but its the truth
-
now you really are out of your mind......Clinton left us huge surplusses......of course he got a little lucky due to the boom caused by the internet.....but nevertheless Bush squandered this through his unneeded tax cut , unfunded wars and drug prescription bill....I say this as a Bush supporter...but its the truth
So me the exact figures where we had a surplus.
-
So me the exact figures where we had a surplus.
here is the link....Clinton had huge suplusses
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
-
and here's another....and this one is from Bloomberg financial....and you are a big supporter of Bloomberg and his business genius...and this comes from him..this article plainly states that Clinton left office with very high surplusses and that Bush's unfunded programs spent all of it and left us with a deficit..egg on your face again
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGqLx61MRY6w
-
here is the link....Clinton had huge suplusses
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
from the article:
Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
and a rebuttal using Treasury.gov figures.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)
-
did n't you see the cuts he made during the budget deal?????....come on you can't possibly be that dense....he and the Repubs did some major cuts.....its just a start...I think he will cut more in the coming year
He didn't want to cut anything during the "budget deal".
His budget calls for running large deficits for the next decade+. For shit sake we've already been through this.
-
He didn't want to cut anything during the "budget deal".
His budget calls for running large deficits for the next decade+. For shit sake we've already been through this.
I agree with you that he was reluctant to cut...and the Republicans pushed him into more cuts than he wanted..but he still gets credit because he could have just scuttled the whole thing and then vetoed it....I am not saying that the Repubs don't deserve credit as well
-
Bump. What is obamas plan and budget again?
-
Bump. What is obamas plan and budget again?
the budget is not just a presidential problem moron, both Dems and Repubs in congress love to spend money
-
the budget is not just a presidential problem moron, both Dems and Repubs in congress love to spend money
I thought the democrats were special? ???
-
So says the guy who voted for bob barr, kneepads obama, said crist would be the 2012 gop nominee, etc.
Yeah, I don't regret my vote for Barr. Great principles.
-
So I probably will vote dem. i'd love to see Obama choose a Wes Clark for a running mate, or a Jim Webb, possibly more likely, for strong military and defense credibility.
My whole family - all Republicans - are voting Obama. i'm driving them to the station later - buying everyone dinner - making it a real family event.
-
OUCH! ;D....It never fails.... our histories always catch up to us on Getbig