10
   

Will Scotus Get ObamaCare Ruling "Right"?

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 07:38 pm
@slkshock7,
You should go with the goat - more honesty, greater sense of duty.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 07:38 pm
Quote:
Sequestration...


So...... nothing, right?

Joe(this GOP is not a political party.)Nation
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 09:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No, the defense cuts requred by sequestration were a compromise on the Repubs part to get the Dems to offer some limited cuts in domestic programs and entitlements. While there are certainly other examples I could posit, I expect you'll simply dismiss them all as "gimmicks", so I won't waste either of our time.

As for your question on tax hikes, please give me a break. Per the CBO, the millionaire's tax proposed by the Dems will raise $450B over ten years. Meanwhile we're facing a $15T deficit. It would take decades to reduce the deficit on the backs of millionaires alone.

You've actually well proven my point on the Dem definition of compromise. Dems like you state "The quickest and most effective way to reduce the deficit is obviously tax hikes on millionaires ... don't you agree? What did you say? "Broadening the tax base"? BS...that'll never work. It's obvious to the most casual observer that tax hikes are the only solution. It's only because of your stubborn uncompromising attitude that you refuse to see that nothing will work except for tax hikes."
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2012 10:59 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:

As for your question on tax hikes, please give me a break. Per the CBO, the millionaire's tax proposed by the Dems will raise $450B over ten years. Meanwhile we're facing a $15T deficit. It would take decades to reduce the deficit on the backs of millionaires alone.


We have a 15T debt. Our Deficit is about a trillion a year at this point. This is mostly due to tax receipts which have been severely depressed due to the recession - NOT due to an explosion of spending under Obama. You are correct, though - the problem cannot be solved by taxing the rich alone.

slkshock7 wrote:
You've actually well proven my point on the Dem definition of compromise. Dems like you state "The quickest and most effective way to reduce the deficit is obviously tax hikes on millionaires ... don't you agree?


I don't agree with that in the slightest. Tax hikes on millionaires, while appropriate, don't do enough. The truth is that we need tax hikes on EVERYONE - and it's also appropriate for all Americans to share in the sacrifices necessary to close our budget gaps.

I have long held the position that we should return to the Clinton tax rates, for all brackets. This would raise an additional 3.7 trillion dollars over the next decade, and would do more to close our budget gap than any other action we could take.

Quote:
What did you say? "Broadening the tax base"? BS...that'll never work. It's obvious to the most casual observer that tax hikes are the only solution. It's only because of your stubborn uncompromising attitude that you refuse to see that nothing will work except for tax hikes."


'Broadening the base' is fine, as long as the net effect is higher revenues. When Republicans talk about it, however, it's always in conjunction with lowering rates to levels which would NEVER be covered by base broadening. That makes those of us on the other side of the fence suspect that the point is really just to let rich people pay less in taxes. When I see Ryan proposing a budget that does exactly that, and then refuse to name the deductions they are going to limit or eliminate in order to pay for the lower tax rates, it only confirms those suspicions.

The truth is that right now, we need to raise taxes somewhat off of their current historical lows, while reigning in spending. We've done the latter to a certain extent, and credit for that goes to the GOP Congress, who has done a good job stopping spending from increasing these last few years. But it's not enough and won't be enough to get us out of the hole we are in.

As a Liberal, I like a larger government that does more to help those in need. I don't want to see spending cut. In a perfect world, I wouldn't be calling for spending cuts. But we're not in a perfect world, and we all need to look past our ideological preferences and settle on something that works. Freezing domestic spending, cutting military spending by 10% for the next two years, and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would balance the budget in just three years. Small changes to medicare and SS would allow those programs to remain solvent for many years to come. THIS is what compromise looks like - both sides of the fence agreeing to certain things they don't want, in order to provide a path forward for our country.

Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 04:17 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo,
Good point on deficit vs. debt but both are threats to US financial standing. I think the cause is due to a combination of factors including decreased revenues but also an explosion of spending thru the past two administrations, including Obamacare and several knee-jerk stimulus bills which did little more than add to the debt.

I wouldn't object to a certain percentage tax increase for all (including those who currently pay no taxes) with an equivalent tax increase on the rich. This should be coupled with continued aggressive cuts in spending to minimize the tax increase needed and simultaneously reduce the size of the federal government, thus ensuring we don't end up in this situation a few years down the road. I'm also not convinced that "small changes to medicare and SS" will fix their long-term solvency issues. Entitlement reform should be on the table, something I don't see willingness of the Dems to entertain.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 04:56 am
Quote:
I wouldn't object to a certain percentage tax increase for all (including those who currently pay no taxes) with an equivalent tax increase on the rich. This should be coupled with continued aggressive cuts in spending to minimize the tax increase needed and simultaneously reduce the size of the federal government, thus ensuring we don't end up in this situation a few years down the road.

Would someone who believes the GOP is party most willing to compromise, please list, in alphabetical order, the names of the GOP House Members who are signatories to the Norquist No Taxes Pledge who would vote for the above proposal.

Joe(Then we can call them up.)Nation
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2012 02:35 am
America spends 17.4% of GDP for lousy healthcare, the next biggest spender comes in at 12%. That folks explains the problem. Obama totally mis-understood the nature of the main problem.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10922752-countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care
honitel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2012 07:19 pm
@realjohnboy,
Well, be bit faster next time John.
I am too, John. Been waiting too!
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 02:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

America spends 17.4% of GDP for lousy healthcare, the next biggest spender comes in at 12%. That folks explains the problem. Obama totally mis-understood the nature of the main problem.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10922752-countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care


I hate to pop your bubble but Obama had nothing to do with health care, only sign the bill that created it. Congress has the power. Obama can only veto or sign bills.

You should learn how the government works before you make a fool of yourself.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 02:54 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Rickoshay75 wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

America spends 17.4% of GDP for lousy healthcare, the next biggest spender comes in at 12%. That folks explains the problem. Obama totally mis-understood the nature of the main problem.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10922752-countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care


I hate to pop your bubble but Obama had nothing to do with health care, only sign the bill that created it. Congress has the power. Obama can only veto or sign bills.

You should learn how the government works before you make a fool of yourself.

How old are anyways.....7YO? I believe the A2k rules are that anyone under 14yo should not be here.
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 03:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Rickoshay75 wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

America spends 17.4% of GDP for lousy healthcare, the next biggest spender comes in at 12%. That folks explains the problem. Obama totally mis-understood the nature of the main problem.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10922752-countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care


I hate to pop your bubble but Obama had nothing to do with health care, only sign the bill that created it. Congress has the power. Obama can only veto or sign bills.

You should learn how the government works before you make a fool of yourself.

How old are anyways.....7YO? I believe the A2k rules are that anyone under 14yo should not be here.


The old switcharoo, huh. Not surprising for someone who has nothing intelligent to say. It does keep the post alive, though and that's the most important thing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 04:23:27