Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 22, 2014, 08:18:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Rep. Tom Coburn, willing to raise taxes with entitlement reform  (Read 696 times)
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« on: December 09, 2012, 10:49:53 AM »

From what many ppl on this board are saying no Reps want to compromise.

Now what do you guys think the Dems "compromise" will be on his proposal?

Things that make you go, hmmmmm.......

http://news.yahoo.com/sen-tom-coburn-im-willing-accept-tax-increases-163152570--abc-news-politics.html

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told me Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" that he is willing to accept tax rate increases as a component of a fiscal cliff deal, as long as Democrats put "significant entitlement reform" on the table.

"What we ought to be working on is the other 93 percent, because even if you do what [Obama] wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7 percent of the deficit," Coburn said. "What we have done is spend ourselves into a hole, and we're not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it."

I wonder if obama will compromise at all....
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7609


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2012, 10:58:40 AM »

Raising taxes alone wont do shit.   

Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2012, 11:17:37 AM »

From what many ppl on this board are saying no Reps want to compromise.

Now what do you guys think the Dems "compromise" will be on his proposal?

Things that make you go, hmmmmm.......

http://news.yahoo.com/sen-tom-coburn-im-willing-accept-tax-increases-163152570--abc-news-politics.html

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told me Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" that he is willing to accept tax rate increases as a component of a fiscal cliff deal, as long as Democrats put "significant entitlement reform" on the table.

"What we ought to be working on is the other 93 percent, because even if you do what [Obama] wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7 percent of the deficit," Coburn said. "What we have done is spend ourselves into a hole, and we're not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it."

I wonder if obama will compromise at all....

So we can fix 7% of the deficit just by raising taxes?

Thats a lot. Do it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7609


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2012, 11:20:31 AM »

So we can fix 7% of the deficit just by raising taxes?

Thats a lot. Do it.

 Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes 

No wonder we are on the verge of collapse
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2012, 11:28:06 AM »

Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes 

No wonder we are on the verge of collapse

We are on the verge of collapse because we dont pay our bills.

Im surprised a guy who runs a business cant grasp this concept.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7609


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2012, 11:28:55 AM »

We are on the verge of collapse because we dont pay our bills.

Im surprised a guy who runs a business cant grasp this concept.

I want to reduce overhead chief 
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2012, 11:50:23 AM »

So we can fix 7% of the deficit just by raising taxes?

Thats a lot. Do it.
LOL 7% is alot to you?

so that means the other 93% that needs to come from either spending cuts or increased taxes on the middle class is gigantic to you then?

so why do you spend all your time concentrating on the 7% instead of the 93%?

How does that make any kind of sense?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7609


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2012, 11:52:14 AM »

LOL 7% is alot to you?

so that means the other 93% that needs to come from either spending cuts or increased taxes on the middle class is gigantic to you then?

so why do you spend all your time concentrating on the 7% instead of the 93%?

How does that make any kind of sense?

to a leftist democrat it makes perfet sense
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2012, 12:54:30 PM »

LOL 7% is alot to you?

so that means the other 93% that needs to come from either spending cuts or increased taxes on the middle class is gigantic to you then?

so why do you spend all your time concentrating on the 7% instead of the 93%?

How does that make any kind of sense?

Of course it is.

Its a start. This problem doesnt disappear over night.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2012, 12:56:56 PM »

Of course it is.

Its a start. This problem doesnt disappear over night.
why not work on the 93% as that has a much bigger impact on it first before taking the hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?

If you feel like the "rich" should be punished thats fine just come out and say it. There isnt any reason to want tax hikes over spending cuts that cut out waste and inefficiency.

They have bigger impacts on the bottom line and you dont have to condone taking more money from ppl who it belongs to fund a wasteful and inefficient govt.

So why do you want tax hikes first and then spending cuts instead of the other way around?
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2012, 01:08:46 PM »

why not work on the 93% as that has a much bigger impact on it first before taking the hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?

If you feel like the "rich" should be punished thats fine just come out and say it. There isnt any reason to want tax hikes over spending cuts that cut out waste and inefficiency.

They have bigger impacts on the bottom line and you dont have to condone taking more money from ppl who it belongs to fund a wasteful and inefficient govt.

So why do you want tax hikes first and then spending cuts instead of the other way around?

Can you name some specifik spending cuts?
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6495


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2012, 01:09:17 PM »

why not work on the 93% as that has a much bigger impact on it first before taking the hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?

If you feel like the "rich" should be punished thats fine just come out and say it. There isnt any reason to want tax hikes over spending cuts that cut out waste and inefficiency.

They have bigger impacts on the bottom line and you dont have to condone taking more money from ppl who it belongs to fund a wasteful and inefficient govt.

So why do you want tax hikes first and then spending cuts instead of the other way around?


Did the rich feel punished when their rates were 50% and 90% decades ago?  Did they just say "Well im going to turn down the million dollars because i dont want leeches like tonymc and 33333 getting govt cheese off my dime.  Is that what happened??   Why you dumbasses protect people that think your scum is beyond me.....but go ahead and fall on your sword.....
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6495


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2012, 01:11:10 PM »

Can you name some specifik spending cuts?


If they do. they willl take another stomping in 2014.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2012, 01:11:28 PM »

Can you name some specifik spending cuts?
As Ive said before, how about 10% cuts in the operating expenses for all programs across the board?

Do you believe the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that there isnt anything that can be cut that wont effect the services they provide?
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2012, 01:13:45 PM »

Did the rich feel punished when their rates were 50% and 90% decades ago?  Did they just say "Well im going to turn down the million dollars because i dont want leeches like tonymc and 33333 getting govt cheese off my dime.  Is that what happened??   Why you dumbasses protect people that think your scum is beyond me.....but go ahead and fall on your sword.....
LMAO leaches?

you dont seem to understand but thats not suprising given your previous posts.

Im not defending the rich, Im defending private citizens from having to give more of their hard earned money to a wasteful and inefficient govt.

Do you not understand that we cant tax the rich and get out of this?

Do you not understand that the next place they will look for money is to US???

how the morons ranting and raving for higher taxes dont see this is beyond me.
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5306


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2012, 01:14:08 PM »

As Ive said before, how about 10% cuts in the operating expenses for all programs across the board?

Do you believe the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that there isnt anything that can be cut that wont effect the services they provide?

There is plenty of waste in the government but its not easy to fix. It needs a giant overhaul buts not gonna be done any time soon.

What do you mean operating expences?
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2012, 01:15:40 PM »

There is plenty of waste in the government but its not easy to fix. It needs a giant overhaul buts not gonna be done any time soon.

What do you mean operating expences?

This right here tells me why you dont understand the problem we are in and continue to buy into the propaganda of the bloated, wasteful and inefficient govt.

Roll Eyes just plain wow that you have the ability to vote.....
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6495


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2012, 01:27:41 PM »

LMAO leaches?

you dont seem to understand but thats not suprising given your previous posts.

Im not defending the rich, Im defending private citizens from having to give more of their hard earned money to a wasteful and inefficient govt.

Do you not understand that we cant tax the rich and get out of this
?

Do you not understand that the next place they will look for money is to US???

how the morons ranting and raving for higher taxes dont see this is beyond me.



F*ck your a dense one.  NO ONE said the rich will take care of all the debt dumbass. Its the first part of a plan.....(Which the gop doesnt have)
And by caring about citizens.....you mean middle class right.  HAHAHAHAHAHA the wealthy will be fine without you trying to schmoe then tony
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2012, 01:32:08 PM »


F*ck your a dense one.  NO ONE said the rich will take care of all the debt dumbass. Its the first part of a plan.....(Which the gop doesnt have)
And by caring about citizens.....you mean middle class right.  HAHAHAHAHAHA the wealthy will be fine without you trying to schmoe then tony
I mean all citizens, do you not understand that we are next on teh chopping block for raising taxes?

and the middle class will be fucked if you continue to support propaganda from bloated, wasteful and inefficient govt.

what spending cuts have the dems proposed war-horse?

The rep in the article I posted said entitlements like medicare...
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6495


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2012, 01:54:42 PM »

I mean all citizens, do you not understand that we are next on teh chopping block for raising taxes?

and the middle class will be fucked if you continue to support propaganda from bloated, wasteful and inefficient govt.

what spending cuts have the dems proposed war-horse?

The rep in the article I posted said entitlements like medicare...


ending cuts in Obama deficit plan would spread the pain
By Richard Wolf and Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY Updated 9/20/2011 1:05 AM
Comments
Reprints & Permissions
WASHINGTON – Upper-income beneficiaries could pay more for Medicare. Farmers could lose federal payments. Federal workers could pay more into their retirement plans. Airline passengers could pay higher security fees.


By Nicholas Kamm, AFP/Getty Images
President Obama details his deficit-cutting plan at a Monday briefing in the White House Rose Garden.
Enlarge
By Nicholas Kamm, AFP/Getty Images
President Obama details his deficit-cutting plan at a Monday briefing in the White House Rose Garden.
Sponsored Links
President Obama's full plan to slash upward of $3 trillion from federal budget deficits over 10 years may be dead on arrival in Congress, but don't be surprised if some elements survive.
Although Obama's proposed $1.5trillion in tax increases on upper-income Americans and corporations are getting most of the attention — and opposition — his spending cuts are more likely to win Republicans' support, budget experts say.
STORY: Deficit plan not class warfare, Obama insists
"I'm proposing real, serious cuts in spending," Obama said Monday. "These savings are not only counted as part of our plan, but as part of the budget plan that nearly every Republican in the House voted for."
So, although the reaction from Republicans was overwhelmingly negative, they are likely to accept some of Obama's proposed spending cuts, particularly in Medicare and Medicaid — and then add to them.

Those twin health care programs for seniors, the poor and people with disabilities serve nearly one in three Americans, and they are at the heart of the debate over cutting federal deficits. Together, they will cost the federal government about $750 billion this year, roughly 20% of the budget.
Much of the debate Monday focused on Obama's retreat from an earlier willingness to consider raising Medicare's retirement age, gradually, from 65 to 67. That could save $125 billion over 10 years, once fully implemented.
News from On Politics

 
Latest posts from USA TODAY On Politics blog
5:43 PM On Politics gets a new look
3:23 PM Tea Party fave touts rival's mugshot
12:58 PM Rooting for Nationals is bipartisan affair
9:24 AM McCaskill jabs Akin on 'ladylike' hit
7:52 AM Polls: Obama leads Romney in N.H.
Read all On Politics posts
Obama didn't repeat the offer, made during negotiations with Republican House Speaker John Boehner this summer. He did propose $248 billion in Medicare savings over 10 years and $72billion in Medicaid savings.
"What the president describes as spending cuts appears, at best, to be a slight reduction in the unsustainable growth of the government budget that's occurring on his watch," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, co-chairman of the special congressional committee charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in savings.
That "slight reduction" includes major reductions for Medicare and Medicaid providers — drugmakers, doctors, hospitals and insurers — and smaller changes for beneficiaries. Starting in 2017, for instance, Medicare recipients with income above $85,000 would pay 15% more in premiums for doctor visits and prescription drugs. That would raise about $20 billion over five years.
Consumer groups such as AARP, the nation's largest seniors group, and Families USA criticized the Medicare and Medicaid cuts. But they stand a good chance of being included in the recommendations of the deficit "supercommittee" this fall.
"The Medicare proposals were disappointingly modest. On the other hand, there's no reason not to do them," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and adviser to congressional Republicans.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a supercommittee member, said Obama "was very clear that Republicans can't just cherry-pick pieces of the proposal they like. … The final product has to reflect a balanced approach" that includes higher taxes on upper-income Americans and corporations.
Among the other spending cuts Obama recommended that could attract bipartisan support:
•Reducing federal payments to farmers and subsidies to crop insurance companies.
•Forcing federal workers to contribute more to their retirement accounts.
•Raising the airline security fee that passengers pay from $5 to $7.50 over five years.
"Some of those other things are definitely in the realm of the possible for the committee," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group. "They don't produce the big savings, of course. But they would produce something."
That's not to say those reductions would be easy to enact. Doctors and drugmakers, farmers and federal workers all have lobbyists who can be counted on to fight back, noted Robert Greenstein, president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
White House budget director Jacob Lew defended the depth of the $580billion in cuts.
"There is a lot of pain, and it's spread broadly," he said.
That may be the key to getting spending cuts passed, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
"If you gore everybody's ox," he said, "there's a shared sacrifice."
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2012, 02:00:20 PM »

your article says exactly what Ive said in the past, obama has proposed cuts to FUTURE SPENDING!!!

As we all know these never come to fruition evidenced by the exponential growth of govt spending....

quit buying into the bloated govt propaganda!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6495


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2012, 02:04:10 PM »

your article says exactly what Ive said in the past, obama has proposed cuts to FUTURE SPENDING!!!

As we all know these never come to fruition evidenced by the exponential growth of govt spending....

quit buying into the bloated govt propaganda!!!


KInd of hard to cut spending in a recession. Do you want the country to backslide tony?  Right now lets agree on what we can and something that doesnt take months of legislation to complete....make sense?  The rest will come but you have noticed the fiscal cliff?Huh? lets get it done and get going...not tying up congress or courts with a bunch of shit...
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2012, 02:07:55 PM »


KInd of hard to cut spending in a recession. Do you want the country to backslide tony?  Right now lets agree on what we can and something that doesnt take months of legislation to complete....make sense?  The rest will come but you have noticed the fiscal cliff?Huh? lets get it done and get going...not tying up congress or courts with a bunch of shit...
so youre another one of those ppl who thinks the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that cutting anything will cause negative effects?

I would certainly agree with you war-horse IF the dems ever kept their word on spending cuts, WHICH THEY DONT!!!!!

thats why you have to tie spending cuts to something they wont like tax hikes.

why not just address both of them now like the reps want to do?

it shouldnt be to hard for the dems to come to an agreement on spending cuts, the reps are coming to the table for tax hikes
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6495


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2012, 02:26:57 PM »

so youre another one of those ppl who thinks the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that cutting anything will cause negative effects?

I would certainly agree with you war-horse IF the dems ever kept their word on spending cuts, WHICH THEY DONT!!!!!

thats why you have to tie spending cuts to something they wont like tax hikes.

why not just address both of them now like the reps want to do?

it shouldnt be to hard for the dems to come to an agreement on spending cuts, the reps are coming to the table for tax hikes



Fiscal cliff.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24845



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2012, 02:30:57 PM »


Fiscal cliff.
agreed, so why are the dems dragging their feet?

get to the table and make it happen before the fiscal cliff

serious question war-horse, if the Reps agree to tax hikes now believing in good faith that the dems will cut entitlements later, do you really think the dems will cut entitlements to medicare and medicade next year?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!