Your obligatory uncalled for whining is noted. Next time just make an acronym of this and put it in your sig.

This can be done largely with a flat tax. Then we can get rid of the IRS. There's a huge chunk of change saved.

Deja vu. Again, flat tax.

This would be irresponsible.

That's better...

Absolutely. And let's stop paying to get Brazil set up to do offshore oil drilling. That's a subsidy not for American companies that employ others oversees, but foreign companies employing people overseas... WTF?!!!

recognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

Even Obama recognized how harmful that would be to our economy.

For about 5 more years. Then it will be China.

...knows that American corporations and small businesses drive the economy. And if you raise taxes too much on these corporations they will move over seas and drive someone else's economy.

No, it is by definition:
* a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
* belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Also by definition. Fine go ahead and call those entitlements.

It wasn't. It was from the Los Angeles Times :lol:

LMAO! When Jen is this upset about Obama that can only mean good news for the US.

Just because you pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, or that everyone else doesn't know, doesn't make the fact disappear.

The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?

Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?
There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.

I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?

I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.

Note to all readers: the quote above is the Tracy Coxx "ending" to the following statement of mine: "Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem ..." It is not a substantive response to the point I made, and answers nothing.

You know that's bullshit, and yet you post it anyway. It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea. We understand you don't like him; you've called him names. And now we see again that you cannot conduct a debate based in honesty.

Note that the above quote is Tracy Coxx's ending to the following that I wrote: "The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx ..."

Where are these engines of the economy right now, Tracy Coxx? Corporations reap profits and hoard their moneys. The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available. "Drive the economy"? You are correct. They are driving it into the ground, because the profit motive -- which has nothing to do with job creation per se -- trumps any interest in what's good for society. And that means it trumps any interest in what's good for you.

Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding. I will simply note that your argument "by definition" is about a definition given the word for political purposes. It is a charged word meant to connote a negative. You are smart enough to know this, so why do you adopt the posture of a Sophist to make your argument. Surely you are capable of arguing the point on the merits, rather than using a trick to avoid that argument.

How I wish, every time I read your posts, that you were available for my rhetoric class. I wouldn't have to give my students printouts for reading. I could just have you verbalize that which you write on this forum, and save some trees from having to give their lives to become paper.

I guess by good news you mean the top two percent won't have to suffer or even help in ending the deficet created by W with his trickle down policies of cutting taxes for the rich and the trillion spent in the war he started with his lies and we now have to rebulid Iraq wasting a trillion dollars

As much as you and the GOP whine about everyone bashing W , it was W that created the mess we are in his tax cuts for the rich and his unfonded wars created this deficet
So where are the jobs made by trickle down? it's been ten years so where are the jobs?
W and his GOP flunkies made this miss and they are still insisting on keeping his failed plans alive
:yes: This is W's mess and blaming Obama won't change the truth

Yes, Jen, absolutely. They "bought" a war on credit, and now -- when it comes time to pay -- they want to pretend that the problem is everything but what they did.

It's like taking out a car loan to buy a new automobile, not making the payments, and then going to the local bank that gave you the money and insisting that they lay off some of their tellers to make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by your default.

The teller reference is especially for you, Jen. And thanks for using the word "whine". ;)

Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.

No. I support flat tax remember?

It should not be the burden of 10% of the country to fund 68% of the government.

In case the need to defend ourselves arises.

I will stop raising ancillary issues when responding to you if you will do the same with me. But yes, I support the elimination of 100% of subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas - with one exception: If US laws prohibit a company from doing work within our own borders, and that company's products are of value to the US, then it's only fair for that company to be subsidized to cover the additional expense of doing business elsewhere.

With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea?

Well they can do that when they also run the treasury.

If you want the wealthiest 10% of the country to pay for the operation of the country, don't be surprised when they want to call the shots. And it's not sustainable. It will last until over 50% of the country realizes they can vote themselves a share of the treasury.

Yeah, she's pretty good about that.

If only you had some concept of Bush's deficit spending vs Obama's deficit spending. We've been down that road many times though.

.What unfondled wars? I thought congress funded them. You mean Bush got away with funding wars without congressional support past the 90 days he's allowed? THAT IS AN OUTRAGE - if only it were true.

What was the unemployment rate during Bush's terms? Where are the jobs that BO's stimulus packages were supposed to create? Like BO says, they weren't as shovel ready as he thought.

1. The flat tax is regressive. You can pretend it is not, but any tax that treats a billionaire and someone who is paid minimum wage the same is "tending to return or revert" us to social barbarism. I don't care that economists call it something else. There's a reason it's supported by the billionaires and their mouthpieces.

2. You dodged the question about the defense budget by ignoring its main point.

3. Oh, and a Republican president never did anything he didn't fully agree with? Give me a fuckin' break.

I see a pattern with you. You take offense when someone uses a word as it's defined because they should know what is really meant. As an engineer, I find it's less confusing if everyone says what they mean with words that mean what they say.

No, I answered your question. You asked about MY reason to support, and as usual, criticized it because it's not what you want to hear.

Sure they have. When they had to compromise with Congress. That wasn't the case with Obama. A republican president has also done things they didn't agree with, despite the ability to do what they really wanted to do, because they knew what was really best for the country. Obama made a rare mature selfless decision when he continued the Bush tax cuts for the good of the country.

If you're claiming that my statement that Obama realized that raising taxes is bad for the economy is a lie then I think people here can see how hollow your accusations are, no matter how often you repeat them.

What bullshit. I didn't take offense. I challenge you to show how the flat tax does anything for people at the lower end of the income spectrum to create greater fairness and equality across the spectrum, not just a benefit for the wealthiest. If you can do so, I'll retract my statement that it is regressive.

Regressive is an adjective with a general meaning and a specific meaning it has been given by economists with respect to taxation. In that latter meaning, it is a technical term. As an engineer, you should know that the ways in which technical adjectives are used are not necessarily commensurate with the dictionary definitions for their general use.

I don't have time for a long thoughtful reply...But Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government. Well hello...It's because the top 10% own 80% of the nation's wealth. The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/in...eater_tax_debt

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax. But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).

Although the "flat tax" is deemed regressive, in actual practice is it really? The wealthy have many ways of minimizing or eliminating their taxes that are unavailable to the lower incomes. I suspect a flat tax would vastly simplify the tax system and provide more income for the government. Everybody should support the government.
Eliminating the sales tax, which hurts low income people, would stimulate the economy and compensate somewhat for the flat income tax.
Yeah, I know, there are plenty of arguments against this.

There's another thing that a LOT of people seem to have a misconception about regarding our "progressive" tax system. Some people seem to be under the impression that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of tax on ALL of their earnings and this is simply not the case. The fact is, everyone's first dollar's of earnings are taxed exactly the same as everyone else's. Up until the first marginal tax bracket, EVERYONE (wealthy and poor alike) are taxed at 10%. Then going up to the next income tax bracket, the earnings between the first and third tax bracket are taxed at 15%.

I think the right like to play a sympathy game as if the "poor", overtaxed wealthy of this country pay 35% on ALL of their earnings. The fact is, for a couple filing jointly, those 35% tax rates don't kick in except on earnings in excess of $250,000. The earnings up to that threshhold are taxed at lower rates. The wealthy would like you to believe that if they make $251,000 a year that they pay $87,850 in taxes (taxing ALL earnings at 35%). The fact is, only the $1,000 (in excess of the $250,000) is taxed at 35%.

And of course, this doesn't even begin to take into account all the deductions and favored tax rates. Yes, some people end up paying no income taxes at all thanks to all the credits and deductions available. And let's not forget that capital gains and dividends are taxed at only 15%...A major source of income for the wealthy. As a result, the EFFECTIVE tax rate that America's wealthiest pay (on total income) is in many cases lower than the income taxes paid by some of our middle class Americans.

I hate to burst everyones bubble but there is really no such thing as a fair tax system cause no matter the system there will be special loopholes favoring one group over everyone else inserted in or added later
Also keep in mind that no matter how many times the GOP scream about the tax and spend DEMS let us not forget that the GOP spend tax dollars just as quick the only difference is they feel the upper two percent shouldn't have to pay taxes only the poor and lower middle class should pay all the taxes
:eek:Jerseygirl Jen

So anyway...

I don't have a problem with that exactly. If there was a flat tax at 17%, someone who makes $100 million/yr would have a $17 million tax bill. If someone made $10000/yr then they would have a $1700 tax bill. The richer person still shoulders a much larger share of funding the government.

This has nothing to do with some 3rd world country. This is about how the rich vs poor in America are taxed.

LOL awesome. You are actually claiming that flat tax is not flat tax. You have violated perhaps the most fundamental axiom: the reflexive axiom and claimed that A is not A. If you're going to call flat tax regressive tax, then what to you call something that is truly by definition regressive tax? The classic trademark of liberals is to water down words with alternate meanings. You and your Kinetic Military Actions, Man Caused Disasters and Deferred Successes.

I'm no expert on economics, but that's referred to as "Fair Tax", and as you say another example of a flat tax system. There's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and again, the elimination of the IRS.

Are you talking about GOP administrations with or without democrat congresses? And are you comparing them to democrat administrations with or without GOP congresses?

Obama: Quit Lying!
 

From Congressman Joe Walsh to Obama: Quit Lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuW...layer_embedded

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes for genuine discourse in the minds of many of the so-called Tea Party members of Congress and, unfortunately, at least one regular poster on this Forum.

(yada,yada, yada, etc. etc

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes , yada, yada, yada,

Tracy, meet me at the Alamo. ;)

Liberal Free for all
 

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

I support the fair tax.

I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

Vicky, it should be quite obvious that you are in good company here.
Sucking tranny cock is very appealing to Liberals. :turnon::inlove:

Being fucked in the ass by a tranny cock is very appealing to conservatives.:coupling:

Conservatives always think they are being screwed by somebody of some thing (taxes). :frown:

Liberals on the other hand believe everybody should enjoy life, the rich and poor alike. Of course, this requires the rich to help out with some of their riches being transferred to the poor. :respect::hug:

It's funny that anyone on this board would even admit to being a rightist conservative Republican. Go tell your Repub friends you like to play dress up and get fucked by other men. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Even if my economic and social philosophy aligned with conservative Republican values, I don't think I could ever affiliate with a party that would seek to take away transgendered/gay rights (or at the minimum, deny them).

Exactly but speaking of that, the very same thing occurred over on HungAngels Forums. There was a transwoman who lived part time but why part time? Because her job was a campaign member of a Republican party where she had to dress and look like a man, fully aware that she would be fired from her job if they knew she was transitioning. But she was so twisted into Republican and conservative ideology that no matter how many people explained it to her what she was doing was wrong and hypocritical she ended up leaving the forum or getting banned, not sure. She just couldn't accept the fact that by doing her job, which was to make phone calls and promote people to vote for Republicans, that she was damaging and hurting herself, her community (LGBT) and being a hypocrite, supporting and working for a party that wants to deny rights to and outlaw LGBT people. It's sad.

I gave strong hints.
The line of "Wannabees" is long.:rolleyes:

Absolutely. Seems to me that's as good a reason to shun the Democrats as well.

Perhaps the two prominent conservatives on the forum (Fran and Tracy), would be willing to explain how they reconcile their politically conservative views with the intolerance and hate of conservatives toward transsexuals.

Since Obama has been in office he has managed to tear down DADT and pass federal hate crimes protections for transgender. Why would you shun that? My state is run by Dems and we just passed gay marriage and laws like GENDA are in the works (which protect transgender from discrimination). Our Democratic friends have also repeatedly attempted to introduce and pass ENDA, which would protect LGB & Transgender from employment discrimination under federal law.

But every time, Republicans have fought to strike them down and religious organizations and corrupt conservative/right wing lobbyists have done everything in their power to not only kill such bills in the Congress and Senate but also openly bash transgender people and spread propaganda lies about us, ie: all those Republican right wing "Family" organizations.

I have great respect for Democrats, while I am not registered to any specific party, I voted for Obama and he was a good choice for me and the community.

I thought the administration took down DADT grudingly. Am I wrong about this? I'd certainly like to be wrong about it. And Obama doesn't seem to want to pass a bill for marriage equality. But if you are correct Kitti then I gladly rescind my previous post.

No, the military and Pentagon are dismantling DADT grudgingly in accordance with the law signed by Obama and through Supreme Court order. They are dragging their feet like whiny assholes and even after the bill passed they kept discharging gays but the Supreme Court recently ordered a freeze on discharges. I hate Repubs. They won't even obey the law.

Also in regards to federal recognition of gay marriage, the Obama administration declared DOMA unconstitutional.

But you forget Kitty: Obama is rescinding DADT because he's weak on defense. He sympathizes with terrorists. Hell he is one. Hussein? Don't tell me that's not a terrorist name. What we need to win this--neverending--war is strong virile heterosexual men. No one shoots like a man pumped up with testosterone and lusting after his wife or girlfriend back home. And heterosexuality also endows you with God's own light, thus protecting you from bullets. Destroy the sanctity of marriage and that of the Army by giving them to the homosexual communists--50s or 40s reference I am not fucking kidding--and you deliver us unto the terrorists.

The Supreme Court ordered a freeze on them? I'm quite surprised.

Please tell me that entire statement is a troll joke.

A joke yes. Though not a troll joke. But now you've made me explain which makes me :broken:

I think my best defense lies with the posts I've made in this forum before. Most of which can be found on this very thread.

Say whu??

Obama's legislative cowpat of a repeal for dadt is such a worthless sponge it allows the military to drag thier feet for as long as possible, in the meantime continuing to discharge gay personnel. The discharge of gay soldiers was actually stopped by the Log Cabin Republican's court action. Obama then promptly cried about how it should be changed through legislation, not a court ruling.

Just goes to show what a worthless sack of dough Obama is that he gets beaten to the punch by a Republican group on one of his own campaign promises.

Yes, Democrats may be better than the Republicans but only in the same way as a 1 legged dog is better than a no legged dog.

I think I agree with Anna now. That part about the dog, that part...that part is funny.

I can't find anything about Obama "crying about the court ruling". And the Log Cabin Repubs are homosexuals... they must have their party affiliations confused.

Must resist lowbrow lazy joke about the Log Cabin Republicans----

"Liberal free for all coming to an end" ?
More than that will be coming to an end if the Repubs have there way. A default could well be the end of the American dream. Playing Russian roulette with the economy is the height of irresponsibility. The Congress is responsible for the government expenses. They can cut expenses and raise or lower taxes, it's up to them. They don't have to listen to lobbyists or anybody else other than the voters. Obama can't raise the debt ceiling, it's up to Congress to do what is right for the country.
Expenses are out of control primarily because of Reaganomics. The absurd belief that you can increase revenue by cutting taxes. It didn't work during Reagon's presidency or during the Bush administration, yet Repubs in congress like to spend money as much as the Democrats. The difference is the Democrats realize you have to raise taxes if you want to spend more money.
Right now we need a strong leader who can rally the public to force this fucked up Congress to shape up and represent the people.

I guess I'm not one of "the people". ( Oh yes, I've been labled thank you. I'm a transsexual.)

As you might have noticed when I'm talking about the GOP candidates I don't completely agree with the GOP platform. The political spectrum is not one dimensional => fiscally liberal to fiscally conservative. Transgendered/gay rights are certainly a good thing, but if the country is bankrupt and the dollar collapses then I'm going to be overwhelmed with much bigger issues. No the country isn't bankrupt, and the dollar is fine at the moment, but we could literally turn on the tv tomorrow and find out different.

Everyone has their own ideas on how we got to this point, but for me it's not entirely the democrats that did it, but certainly the Obama administration has had a huge hand in where we are now. I know we've raised the debt limit several times in the past but the debt has skyrocketed so high over the past few years that I really don't feel that we can blindly raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget agreement.

I also know republicans have been spending into the red as well, but nowhere near as far as the Obama administration.

At least for now, the republicans are finally serious about cutting the deficit. Both sides have acknowledged that the debt needs to be cut. They should also recognize the difficulty in doing that. They HAVE to agree on a balanced budget amendment.

Does anyone think Obama feels any urgency in cutting spending?

Your question of course is addressed to those that would have an afirmative answer.
I do not . The republicans have come up with several plans. The president and the dem's in the Senate have rejected them ,but have not presented a plan of their own. A few days ago the Senate even voted to shut off debate about the issue. How numb is that? They don't even want to discuss it let alone fix it!
Obama has said we need to cut AFTER we spend a little more.
"Let's put off serious solution 'til AFTER I get re-elected." ( implied response)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Thanks for the laugh i need one
Are you talking about the same GOP that added a few trillion to the debt by insisting the Bush tax cuts for the top ten percent remain intact are you refering to the same GOP that insist cuts be made on the backs of the seniors while the rich opps sorry so called job creators keep there tax cuts and not have to scarifice

CAP CUT BALANCE is nothing but next years bumper sticker and typical GOP screw the poor deal and make damn sure the rich pay no taxes
When bozos like Palin and Bachman say it's the best way forward you know it's a typical GOP :coupling: to the poor
The tea party wack a dos insist on cuts cuts and don't dare expect the rich to pay one penny of tax
GOD forbid the top ten percent have to chip in and be burdened with paying there fair share in fact they need to be taxed less according to the 12 bozos trying to head the 12 ticket
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Obama announces tentative deal to extend Bush tax cuts
Well I think that addresses your first question.

The GOP isn't insisting that. That's what happens if the republicans AND democrats can't compromise. Both sides would like a solution though.

So last friday, Boner announced that he's done dealing with Obama because Obama 'moved the goal posts'. i.e. he previously agreed to something and then reneged. So he decided he'll just deal with the Senate.

And Harry Reid is actually negotiating with him. So the pres is cut out. Proposals from both the house and senate will not raise taxes. Interesting...

The whole damn bunch needs to be locked up in the Whitehouse with no food or water until they agree on a solution that gets the Federal governments house in order.
We have elected a bunch of F--king assholes! :censored:

I wonder if that's even possible. Anything Boner proposes gets a warning of a veto before bipartisan votes in the House. Obama shows no inclination to work with the House and compromise.

Obama even promises to veto what Harry Reid proposes. Despite the strong differences in opinions and the unlikelyhood that a real solution is going to be found one way or another anytime soon, Obama doesn't even want a small debt ceiling increase that will get us pass the debt payment. Why? Because then we will be right back here with the effects of his over spending plain for all to see in the middle of his campaign. It seems to me that both the House and Senate are honestly wanting to do what's right for the country, while Obama is worried about how he's going to get re-elected.

The only way we're going to get past this is for the House & Senate to pass something with a 2/3 vote to override BO.

And did you see his speech last night? Even Chris Matthews who said he felt a chill up his leg when BO got elected and admitted he felt it was his responsibility to make Obama look good said "The President should not have gone on national television to give a political address".

After raising our debt by trillions which predictably did nothing for the economy, he had the nerve to lay the blame on others. BO ignored the efforts between the house and his only ally - the Senate to come up with a compromise to tout his own agenda. But the thing is is that Obama still has not offered his own plan! He has no specifics, just speeches. That's because he doesn't want the blame for cutting entitlements, raising taxes or defaulting on the debt. He wants others to do the hard work and make the difficult decisions so that he can point at them and say "See what they did?!" when he's campaigning for round two of his assault on America.

Polls
 

A poll conducted for CNN by ORC International showed support for a Balanced Budget Amendment at 74% among U.S. adults. Support for a proposal like the Republican “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan was 66%.

Gallup Poll: Obama's Weekly Job Approval Ties Term Low of 43%

43% happens to also be the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of BO's performance according to Rasmussen.

And you know the expression: It's the Economy stupid!
Gallup says 73% of Americans say the economy is getting worse.

Are you smoking crack Tracy? Obama has shown a HIGH propensity for compromise which included $3 trillion in spending cuts-- including cuts to Social Security and Medicare (sacred cows for Democrats). It's the damn Republicans that refuse to budge on revenues, or as I like to call it, tax spending.

And part of the reason that the Boehner proposal for a temporary extension (that would last six months) is completely unacceptable is because it creates economic uncertainty for the entire economy. Further, this kick the can approach is almost certain to cause the US having their credit rating lowered. Ratings agencies have said there is a 50% chance of a credit downgrade in the next few months unless a credible plan to address the deficit is forwarded. A six month debt ceiling extension is HARDLY credible and would lead to a lower credit rating. This in turn would lead to a higher cost to service the debt as well as increased borrowing costs for Americans.

And regarding polls, I've seen earlier polls that indicated that a majority of Americans did not want the debt ceiling raised. In the same polls, a majority of Americans admitted to not having a basic understanding of interest rates too, or even what the debt ceiling was. Moral of the story...The voting public is stupid. You won't find many credible economists who would suggest that the most powerful nation on earth shouldn't be able to issue debt. Corporations issue debt to leverage their earnings potential. Families take on debt to invest in their future (mortgages, cars, etc.) Debt is not an evil thing. And the absurdity of "capping" spending at a percentage of GDP completely ignores demographic trends. We have a boom of retirees flooding the system; this marks a major demographic shift from our past history and in the coming decades will necessitate a higher amount of spending as a percentage of GDP to pay the benefits to these retirees. This demographic shift has spending implications. Those that support capping spending ignore the demographics-- what they are essentially saying is that we are going to renege on the promises we've made to seniors.

parr
 

Tracy, all this arrogance he has shown, is going to cost him in 2012 elections.

No, but I did have some blue bell ice cream last night.

The entire time BO has been president I have been griping about his overspending and saying that it was going to put us deep in debt, risk our credit rating and that the programs he wanted weren't going to help anything. 3 years later that is exactly where we are. It's time to recognize that the trillions BO added to the debt were for nothing other than to pay off his supporters. The liberal free for all is at an end.

He has added over $4 trillion in debt in his term. His $3 trillion in cuts that he wants is over 10 years. That's $300 billion/year. That's pocket change. So basically he wants us to live with this debt he added, oh and by the way let's get more tax too for his mismanagement of our economy. That's really going to help in a big-ass recession.

The debt situation BO has put us in creates uncertainty for the economy. As far back as 1940 Congress had to pass 37 short-term debt extensions. They have all provided funding for less than six months. He is focused on his campaign, pure and simple. Like what Rahm Emanuel says "You never want a serious crisis go to waste".

That's a blanket statement. Certainly you must realize that at some point the interest payments become too big of a burden on our economy.

Wouldn't it be nice if the $157 billion we're paying for interest on our debt could go to the boom of retirees flooding the system instead? We have to live within our means. If there's a boom of retirees flooding the system, then we'll have to cut something else. You want to add more money to the budget? Create more tax payers.

And notice how the part about the Boehner proposal leading to a credit downgrade-- that didn't warrant a response.

One of the major reasons to not kick the can down the road with a 6 month extension.

So they have pulled the "balanced budget amendment" out of the closet. Dear old Ronny yammered about this years ago. When he got elected, he appointed a committee of people OPPOSED to it to "study" it. It died a quiet death.

Kick the can???

Ok, well this isn't what I was talking about before. I was talking about just raising the debt ceiling enough to pay the interest payments for the next 6 months. What S&P is saying here is that they want more than that. They want to see us actually bring down the debt at least $4 trillion in 10 years. I would like to see that as well. I've always been a big proponent of seriously cutting spending and bringing down the debt. Basically they want the debt rolled back to where it was before Obama took office LOL. That's certainly something they can do, I only hope congress and BO are listening.

Tracy Do you actually believe the money spent, by Congress, to save the countries financial institutions during the meltdown was unnecessary?

I think at most it only bought us time, and in the meanwhile, it left us with a larger debt. The ramifications of that are not over. I think as Ron Paul says, we were left worse off in the long run than if we bit the bullet and took the hit.

Jay Carney (White House press secretary) just said if we don't reach a deal by August 2nd, we will lose our borrowing authority.

Why is that? We do have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. If we don't do it, it's because the president and treasurer chose not to. And because Cut Cap and Balance got shot down in the senate, and congress won't come up with anything else sufficient, we're likely to get our credit rating downgraded.

But we will still be able to borrow, just at a higher rate. So why is the Carny lying?

He ( Carney) is not lying. It's part of the Obamesiah stratagy. It's to create a hate war between groups.

Moodys gives the GOP junk status. LOL

Exactly what they deserve. :censored:

The 2008 election is proof of that.
http://youtu.be/_mfMG66LtVU

Most of these families try to live within their means. That includes paying their bills, paying off their loans and mortgages, trying to stay within a budget. The problem with our national debt is that our government shows no intention of paying off its loans and they will not live within their means (unless forced to by -ohh IDK, maybee a- Constitutional Ammendment, and maybee not even then).

I couldn't respond to you about debt any better than this:
"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. Government 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. ? Increasing America?s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ?the buck stops here.? Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Barack Obama - 2006

Well--- That's was before he inherited the Bush meltdown. I got no answer from you on what would have happened if Obama had not poured cash into the economy as the country melted down, where would we be today?

I just read a newspaper article today that says that every US president from Eisenhower on has raised the debt ceiling.

I do agree that the US has a debt problem that no one is willing to fix. I also agree that there is a leadership failure. As I see it, it is due to a weak president. That's not to say that a strong president would come up with better solutions. It just means that there is no leadership and hence no direction. The US ship of state is afloat and rudderless with an impending hurricane.

The US is going to have to get its act together. If it doesn't it will put the whole world economy into chaos and cause problems for generations to come. The reason it will cause problems to the world economy is because most money traders are based in the US and they have no idea that there is any other country beyond its borders. They are blinkered and shortsighted. There only concern is maximum profit for minimum effort regardless of the long term consequences.

There are some very important elements to this entire debt ceiling "crisis" that are getting buried in the hyperbolic bullshit that substitutes for honest discourse (not what ila wrote above, but generally). I put all of this in the following context: I am not a supporter of Barack Obama, and am not a Democrat.

First, this "crisis" has been completely manufactured for political ends. Every single president since Franklin Roosevelt, including every Republican president, has raised the debt ceiling. The radical reactionaries elected under the Tea Party banner manufactured this crisis in an effort to starve the U.S. government of the money it needs to function, because they do not believe in the system under which the United States operates. They are willing to dismantle the social compact that has served the U.S. people (albeit, poorly) since the Great Depression not because it incurs debt, but because they are against its principles and the social solidarity implied by it. It is NOT ABOUT MONEY.

Second, the debt ceiling is a very simple thing that has typically been addressed in legislation no longer than a single piece of paper. It simply gives the Treasury Department the authority to borrow money Congress has already approved for spending. That authority involves going to the bond market and selling U.S. Treasury Bonds, long the most trusted investment in the entire world.

Third, the U.S. Constitution says not a word about the debt ceiling. There is only one other country in the world that has a provision like our debt ceiling, and that's Denmark. The U.S. debt ceiling was an invention of 1917, when federal budget controls were not nearly as stringent and sophisticated as they are today. The debt ceiling votes in Congress have always been more or less routine: some people (Obama when he was a senator, for instance) will symbolically vote against raising them with the full understanding that it will pass, because it must. It has nothing to do with spending in the future.

Fourth, it is a complete fabrication of the Tea Party (and aped by Tracy Coxx in multiple posts) that Barack Obama is some kind of crazed taxer who overspends and threatens to put the United States into bankruptcy. (Yes, Tracy Coxx will pretend that because Tracy Coxx never used those precise words Tracy Coxx is not responsible for such specific, hyperbolic, idiotic views.) The facts are otherwise, though. U.S. indebtedness runs around $14 trillion. Over the past 10 years, $5.07 trillion was run up during the Bush administration. Obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion. The Tea Partiers are liars (in addition to being ignorant).

Fifth, as the Tea Party seeks to delegitimize Obama, it is clear that should they succeed in obstructing all the way to "default," Obama can then order the secretary of the treasury to issue bonds as needed. There is ample legal opinion, highly respected, that the debt ceiling is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch, and opinions by very conservative justices now on the Supreme Court (and appointed by Bush) that provide precedents.

I did answer here:
And here's what Ron Paul said in September of 2008. I still agree with him...

Is this to imply that Obamesiah is not qualified to be prez by virtue of his birthplace?

... like shooting fish in a barrel ...

From Dean Baker, Business Insider
Corporate profits

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

This would solve the debate pronto.

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
:eek: JG J

Of course, "fuck you" to everyone but the rich should come as no surprise.

Is the building in the cartoon is the wrong one for what is supposedly going on inside? I'm pretty sure that the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US do not hold legislative sessions in the White House.

It looks like the back of the Whitehouse. Anything goes in a cartoon.

Parr
 

I guarantee you that Cut Capt and Balance does nothing like this:

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok. Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

p.s. you know that the necessity to raise the debt ceiling has been known since at least before last November right? And did you know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could have easily raised it back then before the newly elected GOP took office? They chose not to because they wanted the GOP to share the blame of raising the debt ceiling. Not that that would have kept us from losing our credit rating, we still need to cut all that debt that the dems added in the last 3 years.

No, there's a shortfall. I'm not sure how short we are but we can pay the interest on the debt and we have to. That will get paid first, despite what BO and the Treasurer say. Then the president has to pick and choose which groups of people (i.e. sr citizens, the military, etc) do not get paid, or who gets paid less. But I think the government gets about $200 billion/month in revenues from taxes and on gas taxes (yes, the government makes quite a bit of money on gas taxes while liberals whine that the government subsidizes oil companies). There may be some creative financing going on so that these groups are simply paid a few days or weeks late as more revenue comes in.

But the government keeps raising the deficit more and more each year. BO is running more than twice the deficit Bush did, and the deficit is projected to keep growing 7% each year.

If the Tea Party wins it's back to Voodoo economics.

More lies from Tracy Coxx. The budget for the first year of the Obama administration was Bush's budget. That's how it works. But Tracy Coxx wants to pin those trillions on Obama, so Tracy Coxx tries to make it sound as if it's Obama's fault. Of course, Tracy Coxx will say Tracy Coxx never specifically wrote that. Fortunately, most everyone reading here is brighter than Tracy Coxx wishes you were.

To repeat, as I wrote earlier: Obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion of the deficit, not the amount Tracy Coxx writes. Obama inherited unfunded wars and a budget. No matter how much lying Tracy Coxx does, it doesn't make the facts go away.

As for "doing relatively ok" ... well, that just negates 30 or so years of economic truth in the United States. But when you're trying to paint a picture for ideological reasons, why should facts get in the way?

I am no Democrat, but this is another crock of shit from Tracy Coxx. The implication is that "fiscal responsibility is, by contrast, a trait of Republicans. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- all of which reversed the U.S. surplus and made it a deficit -- now there are great examples of "fiscal responsibility." Oh, by the way, Bush was a Republican.

Tracy Coxx is an ideologue without conscience, which means that facts are fungible or downright ignorable if they get in the way of making the ridiculous arguments that are the Tracy Coxx hallmark.

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Since we are in graphing mode , here is a comparison, if Regan and Bush had kept debt under control..

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

And btw... THE CAKE IS A LIE!

The cake is NOW a lie cuz I ated it like two weeks ago. But it wasn't a lie at the time I posted that blog. YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

As stated before though, many times, Obama has only spent like ~$1.5 trillion and that's from ongoing wars started by Bush, while I agree Afghanistan was necessary but totally failed in planning, Iraq was total horseshit Bush's personal agenda and also then the bailouts, which we shouldn't have bailed out those banks, let them fail and take them over under government authority. Also "Obamacare" actually will save money in the long run, as also pointed out in earlier posts.

Also it is one of the most helpful pieces of legislation passed by him, regardless of cost, to protect people from corporate corruption. If it wasn't for Obama's healthcare bill, I wouldn't have health coverage right now. I will be able to stay on my mom's insurance provider for another two years because of the extension he passed, otherwise I'd be paying for not just my doctor, hospital and dentist visits but my transition too out of pocket. There's a shitload of other things that bill did to secure people's equal right to receive treatment.