Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 12:33 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:


Social Security isn't the problem - it is well recognized and agreed that modest changes to SS taxes and to retirement ages will keep it solvent for a long, long time. It's Medicare that is the problem...

What more, many of the recommendations put forth by the commission are stupid and wouldn't have the effect that the authors believed.

Cycloptichorn


Your first assertion appears to be false, though it is disguised in vagueries such as " it is well recognized and agreed" ; "modest changes to SS taxes and to retirement ages will keep it solvent for a long, long time" ; etc. If this is so then why hasn't Obama initiated the "modest" changes required?


Politically, it's very difficult for him to do so. For the same reasons it's difficult for the GOP to propose cutting defense spending - it's a part of the natural constituency for both parties. It's highly unpopular to cut SS or make changes to it.

This is exactly why we often see calls for a 'grand bargain,' in which both sides sign off on cuts to popular programs, in order to insulate any one group from the backlash. This is also why Republicans, during the negotiations over the so-called 'fiscal cliff,' refused to enumerate exactly which cuts in Medicare and SS they were requesting, instead attempting to force the Democrats to define them for them - a tactic which failed.

Quote:
There are many intelligent and well informed folks out there who indicate they believe many or most of Simpson & Boles' recommendations were well-conceived and sound. Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't. Why not share your superior knowledge and insights. Don't just leave us with these premptory and apparently unfounded assertions.


Do you even know what's IN the S-B committee's failed report? Or is it just a magic solution to problems for you, the way it is for many of our beltway pundits? I wonder.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/05/simpson_bowles_is_magic/

Many of those who say 'we should follow the S-B recommendations' clearly don't know anything about it, as they 1) don't seem to realize that the commission produced no recommendations, and 2) most of these people regularly argue against the very positions that S-B called for.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 01:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well now we know the source of your prefabricated opinions.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 01:07 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Well now we know the source of your prefabricated opinions.


Mm Hmm. I read that article this morning, but my opinions pre-date that by some time. So I can't agree with the sentence you've written here.

What we don't know, however, is whether or not you actually know what the S-B non-recommendations called for. I highly doubt it, seeing as you continually refer to the commission's 'recommendations' as it it actually produced any at all. I wonder if you'd be willing to share the source for YOUR pre-fabricated opinions on the issue?

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 01:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
But I didn't refer to the "commission's recommendations at all, as they didn't agree on any. I instead referred to those presented to the president by the joint chairmen, Simpson and Boles.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 01:29 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

But I didn't refer to the "commission's recommendations at all, as they didn't agree on any. I instead referred to those presented to the president by the joint chairmen, Simpson and Boles.


Oh, you didn't write this:

Quote:
More to the point Obama doesn't want to raise taxes of folks he expects might vote for him: he ignored the recommendations of the Simpson- Boles Commissionn he himself appointed.


... in this post:

http://able2know.org/topic/205450-3#post-5222269

?

My internet must be broken somehow, as it says you did write exactly what I said you did, but you just claimed you didn't. I'll have to get that looked into.

Cycloptichorn
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 02:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Obama and the Senate have no interest in real cuts to current spending limits. They SAY they already cut 1 Trillion which is actually a lie, but Obama and this Congress will increase spending and go for more revenue.

Whether that is higher tax rates or elimination of deductions, this President and this Senate want more revenue and there really is nothing the House can do about it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 02:50 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

Obama and the Senate have no interest in real cuts to current spending limits. They SAY they already cut 1 Trillion which is actually a lie, but Obama and this Congress will increase spending and go for more revenue.


Well, it's not a lie, in that the Sequester does cut about a trillion dollars of spending. Might want to read up on it.

However, you'll be happy to know that I agree with you - we need to cut spending further, across the board, in order to help balance our books. And there are plenty of places to do this, most notably in the area of military spending, which has doubled in the last decade.

Quote:
Whether that is higher tax rates or elimination of deductions, this President and this Senate want more revenue and there really is nothing the House can do about it.


Wish the Republicans in Congress would agree to this simple point you've made. And I would remind you that a majority of the people of the country support this move.

Cycloptichorn
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 03:30 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
True, but you have to do it slowly. If you yank hard on the run while the economy is standing on it you aren't going to like the result. I'd even be good with holding spending steady and letting the economy (and the tax base) grow to catch it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 03:55 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

True, but you have to do it slowly. If you yank hard on the run while the economy is standing on it you aren't going to like the result. I'd even be good with holding spending steady and letting the economy (and the tax base) grow to catch it.


Given that our population continually grows, a freeze in spending is very similar in economic terms to a cut.

Nevertheless, I do agree, and wouldn't mind seeing things take time to develop. But, then again, I wouldn't mind seeing us being a much higher tax state than we currently are...

Cycloptichorn
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 11:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
The sequester will NEVER HAPPEN (at least on the non defense side). They kicked that can down the road to avoid it in the first place. So your point that this "saves spending" is actually false, for the moment.

This Senate and This President will raise revenue and not do much on entitlement cuts.

Face it, the consequences of this election is everyone's taxes will go up, if not by rate then by "gimmick".

Is it the right thing to do? We won't know until years after it happens.

The Republicans need to stop whining and face the reality the entire Congress created for itself.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 12:01 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

The sequester will NEVER HAPPEN (at least on the non defense side). They kicked that can down the road to avoid it in the first place. So your point that this "saves spending" is actually false, for the moment.


The Sequester IS current law, so it WILL happen unless a new law is passed to prevent it from happening. So it's not false, until the law itself is changed, which it hasn't been.

Quote:
This Senate and This President will raise revenue and not do much on entitlement cuts.


True, because neither they nor the American populace wants entitlement cuts.

Quote:
Face it, the consequences of this election is everyone's taxes will go up, if not by rate then by "gimmick".


Good! Everyone's taxes NEED to go up in the long run to fund the programs that the American populace clearly wants funded. We can't sustain ourselves as a nation without paying taxes.

Quote:
Is it the right thing to do? We won't know until years after it happens.

The Republicans need to stop whining and face the reality the entire Congress created for itself.


Agreed!

Cycloptichorn
woiyo
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 02:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Except the Ultra wealthy who continue to bankroll the Politicians. Remember, the Ultra rich received the greatest tax break in history when the Estate Tax exemption went from $1M per person to $5M per person ($10M per family). (the exemption is now 5,250,ooo per person or 10,500,00 per family)

Remember this was support by both parties.

So yes, everyone's Income Taxes will go up but the ultra rich get the tax break at the end.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 02:15 pm
@woiyo,
Which is partly why I'm a proponent of both campaign finance reform and term limits for Congress. The only way to make it happen is to get the states to call for an amendment to the constitution. Congress is never going to write itself out of a job or eliminate the cash cows that pay for their next campaign.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 02:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

.
Quote:
Whether that is higher tax rates or elimination of deductions, this President and this Senate want more revenue and there really is nothing the House can do about it.


Wish the Republicans in Congress would agree to this simple point you've made. And I would remind you that a majority of the people of the country support this move.

Cycloptichorn

Unfortunately for you both the House of Representatives really is a distinct element of our government, and it's consent will be required.

Both sides have their perspectives. The Democrat controlled Senate hasn't voted on any budgets approved by the House for the past four years, meanwhile the Senate continues to demand that the House comply with its prejudices.

It's very easy to argue for benign consequences of increased taxes on other people, much harder that arguing for more taxes or fewer deductions when they will apply to yourself.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 05:46 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Both sides have their perspectives. The Democrat controlled Senate hasn't voted on any budgets approved by the House for the past four years


This is an untrue statement. The Senate has voted on the budget passed by the House for the last two years in a row and rejected it both times.

In reality, the idea that the House GOP will be able to weather the scorn of the country that would be brought about by a willful shutdown of the gov't, either through refusing to raise the debt ceiling or through shutting down the gov't by refusing to pass appropriations bills, is a total farce. It displays a complete misunderstanding of the politics of the situation. You might wish the GOP would hold fast and force the Democrats to accede to their demands to cut spending, but they will not do so - Obama and the Democrats are going to blame the whole thing on them, and it's going to work just fine.

Perhaps you are unaware just how low the approval ratings for the GOP are at this time, and how unpopular their suggested entitlement cuts are? I don't know what about that combination signals to you a position of strength, which would be necessary for the House to prevail in a high-stakes standoff.

Cycloptichorn
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 06:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
the business community will come down hard in advance of not raising the debt ceiling or going down Grover's stated path of doling out debt ceiling increases in weekly or monthly increments.

We do need entitlement reform. The math simply doesn't work longterm, but it needs to be separated from the debt ceiling increases.

Aside -- Scalia apparently stated on CSPAN-2 that, "The letter of the law is the letter of the law", indicating that the platinum coin option is legal.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 06:25 pm
@JPB,
I agree about campaign finance reform. It will never happen as long as those getting rich are the ones voting on it. The states won't, who would drive that? Get elected and you are on the road to riches. I've seen so many start with honest, good intentions and then we never hear from them again. It's gotten much worse with the super pacs. Now it takes Millions to get elected.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 06:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,


This country is in decline and I don't see a 'recovery plan' that's been put forth
by the current administration... it's as if they want the country to hit bottom.
0 Replies
 
spitfire88
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2013 04:58 am
@IRFRANK,
That's not entirely true. The "people" just don't want to hear them when they speak. Ron Paul is a genuine, honest public servant. Many of the "people" just choose to write him off and ignore what he has to say.

If the Republicans hate him, and the Democrats hate him, and the government controlled media hates him, it tells me he must be doing something right on behalf of the people.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2013 05:56 am
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
The states won't, who would drive that?


That would have to be us. Contact your state reps. Over and over again. They too are elected by the people and not all of them have national ambitions.
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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2021 at 03:04:28