Aa
What say you about taxes and the rich?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2801206.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl37|sec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D277981
This probably doesn't mean a thing......
This probably doesn't mean a thing......
I'll add this... it's not just this President that the republicans hate, they hate all democrat republicans and the knife cuts both ways. Republican and democrat ideals are often polar opposites, so this is what you get.
I'll also add that I believe the sequester is still a good idea. There are some things being cut that either one side or the other doesn't want cut. I think that is a step in the right direction. The government needs to learn to live with less and they need to learn to police their spending. Spending accountability in government is non-existant.
I agree that tax loopholes need to be closed. There are so many ridiculous things regarding taxation that need to be squared away. It's been broken for as long as government frivolous spending has been around. Both of them are killing this country. Everything within the FED needs an across the board audit, and those responsible for the complete loss of money with no accountability need to be fired first, then tried in a court of law for embezzlement.
As stupid as this sounds, until government starts to do things differently, there will be no change in how government operates.
I'll also add that I believe the sequester is still a good idea. There are some things being cut that either one side or the other doesn't want cut. I think that is a step in the right direction. The government needs to learn to live with less and they need to learn to police their spending. Spending accountability in government is non-existant.
I agree that tax loopholes need to be closed. There are so many ridiculous things regarding taxation that need to be squared away. It's been broken for as long as government frivolous spending has been around. Both of them are killing this country. Everything within the FED needs an across the board audit, and those responsible for the complete loss of money with no accountability need to be fired first, then tried in a court of law for embezzlement.
As stupid as this sounds, until government starts to do things differently, there will be no change in how government operates.
" it's his responsibility to lead the country out of messes like this, not just go around the country blaming the Republicans. If he were such a great leader and were willing to compromise so much, he would have been able to reach an agreement."
How can he when the repubs will NOT compromise or work with him???????????? I mean the shunned the ONLY popular republican for working with the president during a crisis..(Chris Christie) They think raising taxes on the rich is compromise...not at all....I will defend him when necessary I will also criticize him when necessary...I actually think he needs to be tougher and more firm with the repubs..This is not the time to play nice anymore. They're not! With this sequester the President is at fault because he agreed to this stupid deal however, the non resolution of this sequester is ALL the GOP......They want these cuts and they don't care what the ramifications are...
How can he when the repubs will NOT compromise or work with him???????????? I mean the shunned the ONLY popular republican for working with the president during a crisis..(Chris Christie) They think raising taxes on the rich is compromise...not at all....I will defend him when necessary I will also criticize him when necessary...I actually think he needs to be tougher and more firm with the repubs..This is not the time to play nice anymore. They're not! With this sequester the President is at fault because he agreed to this stupid deal however, the non resolution of this sequester is ALL the GOP......They want these cuts and they don't care what the ramifications are...
One thing we do agree on is Paul Ryan; he's not good for the Republican party and I believe he's a major part of the reason Romney didn't win. Not that I thought Romney would have made a good President, because I didn't; just that Ryan would have made it that much worse.
"They dislike/hate this President soooo much that they DO NOT want him to SUCCEED in his presidency in ANY WAY so, they will do whatever they can to stop any kind of progress that will benefit President Obama." Who cares about what will benefit Obama? He's the leader of this country and should be working for the benefit of the American people; not himself and if all he's worried about is the legacy he leaves behind, he might as well step down today. While there may be those who don't want him to succeed, I don't think the majority feel that way.
"I'm not trying to be mean or point fingers or cause a fight on this thread but from where I'm standing, that's what it looks like, sounds like, feels like and IS.."
I don't intend to be mean, point fingers or cause a fight either, but from where I stand, I don't see a single politician, including the President, who is completely blameless in this whole fiasco. I posted a video a while back that showed the people responsible for getting the country into this mess. President Obama was just as prominent on that list as anyone else. You (people, not just you personally) can defend him all you want but as the President, it's his responsibility to lead the country out of messes like this, not just go around the country blaming the Republicans. If he were such a great leader and were willing to compromise so much, he would have been able to reach an agreement.
"They dislike/hate this President soooo much that they DO NOT want him to SUCCEED in his presidency in ANY WAY so, they will do whatever they can to stop any kind of progress that will benefit President Obama." Who cares about what will benefit Obama? He's the leader of this country and should be working for the benefit of the American people; not himself and if all he's worried about is the legacy he leaves behind, he might as well step down today. While there may be those who don't want him to succeed, I don't think the majority feel that way.
"I'm not trying to be mean or point fingers or cause a fight on this thread but from where I'm standing, that's what it looks like, sounds like, feels like and IS.."
I don't intend to be mean, point fingers or cause a fight either, but from where I stand, I don't see a single politician, including the President, who is completely blameless in this whole fiasco. I posted a video a while back that showed the people responsible for getting the country into this mess. President Obama was just as prominent on that list as anyone else. You (people, not just you personally) can defend him all you want but as the President, it's his responsibility to lead the country out of messes like this, not just go around the country blaming the Republicans. If he were such a great leader and were willing to compromise so much, he would have been able to reach an agreement.
I agree with you on the wasteful spending and fraud...
"Mitt didn't win and they already gave on it with the Jan agreement;
THANK GOD!....They didn't "give in"...They let us go "over the cliff" and then because they were now looking at "tax cuts" so they voted for it...
why should they have to give it again? "
Because the President has CUT MORE and given more and is open to MORE "sensible" cuts....See below:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/110606/obama-deficit-reduction-offer-spending-cut-tax-increase-boehner#
let’s focus on this claim, from Republicans, that Obama only wants to raise taxes and isn’t serious about spending cuts. Here’s an analysis from one senior Republican aide, as relayed to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:
The White House keeps saying it wants a ‘balanced approach’ but this offer is completely unbalanced and unrealistic. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – all of that upfront – in exchange for only $400 billion in spending cuts that come later. Plus, the only entitlement changes they proposed come from the exact proposals in the President’s budget.
The trouble with this analysis is that it ignores history: As part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama agreed to spending reductions of about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you count the interest, the savings is actually $1.7 trillion. Boehner should have no problem remembering the details of that deal: As Greg Sargent points out, Boehner at the time actually gloated about the fact that the deal was "all spending cuts."
And now, with this latest offer, Obama is proposing yet more spending reductions, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Add it up and it’s more than $2 trillion in spending cuts Obama has either signed into law or is endorsing now. That’s obviously greater than the $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue he’s seeking. (And that doesn't even take into account automatic cuts from the 2011 budget sequester, which Obama has proposed to defer, or savings from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.) So, yes, Obama’s proposal is unbalanced—but not in the way Republicans seem to think. If Obama were proposing a truly balanced plan, he’d be calling for even more tax revenue or even less spending reduction.
The GOP wants to demolish the entire "entitlement" (I hate that word because we all pay into them) programs..Take the Ryan Budget for example..He is the Chair of Budget Committee and the GOP DESPERATELY wants this budget passed..Thank god it won't...
Here's another link for ya
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/fiscal_record.pdf
I mean the President gets NO credit and he deserves it..the republicans in congress are Obstructive and they are the ones causing Austerity for our country. They dislike/hate this President soooo much that they DO NOT want him to SUCCEED in his presidency in ANY WAY so, they will do whatever they can to stop any kind of progress that will benefit President Obama. Even at the sake of you and me and every other American/Tax Payer in this country..I'm not trying to be mean or point fingers or cause a fight on this thread but from where I'm standing, that's what it looks like, sounds like, feels like and IS....
NO revenue means we CANNOT take care of our deficit..We need BOTH cuts and revenues...As of right now, there are WAY more cuts than revenues and that is NOT balanced....
"Mitt didn't win and they already gave on it with the Jan agreement;
THANK GOD!....They didn't "give in"...They let us go "over the cliff" and then because they were now looking at "tax cuts" so they voted for it...
why should they have to give it again? "
Because the President has CUT MORE and given more and is open to MORE "sensible" cuts....See below:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/110606/obama-deficit-reduction-offer-spending-cut-tax-increase-boehner#
let’s focus on this claim, from Republicans, that Obama only wants to raise taxes and isn’t serious about spending cuts. Here’s an analysis from one senior Republican aide, as relayed to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:
The White House keeps saying it wants a ‘balanced approach’ but this offer is completely unbalanced and unrealistic. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – all of that upfront – in exchange for only $400 billion in spending cuts that come later. Plus, the only entitlement changes they proposed come from the exact proposals in the President’s budget.
The trouble with this analysis is that it ignores history: As part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama agreed to spending reductions of about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you count the interest, the savings is actually $1.7 trillion. Boehner should have no problem remembering the details of that deal: As Greg Sargent points out, Boehner at the time actually gloated about the fact that the deal was "all spending cuts."
And now, with this latest offer, Obama is proposing yet more spending reductions, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Add it up and it’s more than $2 trillion in spending cuts Obama has either signed into law or is endorsing now. That’s obviously greater than the $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue he’s seeking. (And that doesn't even take into account automatic cuts from the 2011 budget sequester, which Obama has proposed to defer, or savings from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.) So, yes, Obama’s proposal is unbalanced—but not in the way Republicans seem to think. If Obama were proposing a truly balanced plan, he’d be calling for even more tax revenue or even less spending reduction.
The GOP wants to demolish the entire "entitlement" (I hate that word because we all pay into them) programs..Take the Ryan Budget for example..He is the Chair of Budget Committee and the GOP DESPERATELY wants this budget passed..Thank god it won't...
Here's another link for ya
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/fiscal_record.pdf
I mean the President gets NO credit and he deserves it..the republicans in congress are Obstructive and they are the ones causing Austerity for our country. They dislike/hate this President soooo much that they DO NOT want him to SUCCEED in his presidency in ANY WAY so, they will do whatever they can to stop any kind of progress that will benefit President Obama. Even at the sake of you and me and every other American/Tax Payer in this country..I'm not trying to be mean or point fingers or cause a fight on this thread but from where I'm standing, that's what it looks like, sounds like, feels like and IS....
NO revenue means we CANNOT take care of our deficit..We need BOTH cuts and revenues...As of right now, there are WAY more cuts than revenues and that is NOT balanced....
""The Republicans don't have to give on revenue"
They do because they ran on it and said they would..So if Mitt would've won would they have reneged?"
Mitt didn't win and they already gave on it with the Jan agreement; why should they have to give it again?
"They've already made cuts but its not enough for the repubs so yes, they need to concede some more cuts to get the revenue..that IS balanced... "
I don't think they're going to get any more revenue this time around. I still contend that if fraud and waste/unnecessary spending were cut from nearly every government program there is, there would not be a huge need for either a lot of cuts or a lot of revenue.
Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe $X being spent on an obsolete program could be funneled into something useful? Do we really care how many times a frog mates in 10 min? Or how many times a shrimp can flip its tail in an hour? Or some of the other frivolous studies that get done?
Check this out: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/government-waste-20-of-the-craziest-things-that-the-u-s-government-is-spending-money-on
Or this one: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nows-time-start-cutting-wasteful-government-programs
Haven't even touched on SS and Medicare fraud....... heard last week the Scooter Store is being investigated by Medicare......we paid for HOW MANY scooters for people who were just too lazy to get up and walk?
I'm not saying loop holes shouldn't be closed; they should, but only as total tax reform, not as a budget item.
They do because they ran on it and said they would..So if Mitt would've won would they have reneged?"
Mitt didn't win and they already gave on it with the Jan agreement; why should they have to give it again?
"They've already made cuts but its not enough for the repubs so yes, they need to concede some more cuts to get the revenue..that IS balanced... "
I don't think they're going to get any more revenue this time around. I still contend that if fraud and waste/unnecessary spending were cut from nearly every government program there is, there would not be a huge need for either a lot of cuts or a lot of revenue.
Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe $X being spent on an obsolete program could be funneled into something useful? Do we really care how many times a frog mates in 10 min? Or how many times a shrimp can flip its tail in an hour? Or some of the other frivolous studies that get done?
Check this out: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/government-waste-20-of-the-craziest-things-that-the-u-s-government-is-spending-money-on
Or this one: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nows-time-start-cutting-wasteful-government-programs
Haven't even touched on SS and Medicare fraud....... heard last week the Scooter Store is being investigated by Medicare......we paid for HOW MANY scooters for people who were just too lazy to get up and walk?
I'm not saying loop holes shouldn't be closed; they should, but only as total tax reform, not as a budget item.
"The Republicans don't have to give on revenue"
They do because they ran on it and said they would..So if Mitt would've won would they have reneged?
while the Democrats don't have to decide which programs get cut, because the cuts are "across the board".
They've already made cuts but its not enough for the repubs so yes, they need to concede some more cuts to get the revenue..that IS balanced...
They do because they ran on it and said they would..So if Mitt would've won would they have reneged?
while the Democrats don't have to decide which programs get cut, because the cuts are "across the board".
They've already made cuts but its not enough for the repubs so yes, they need to concede some more cuts to get the revenue..that IS balanced...
I could see some of those loopholes being closed if they could be done as a tax reform issue, but otherwise I don't see anything happening.
Bottom line is: he wanted revenue, he got revenue.
As brice said, when "we, the people" run out of money in our budget, we have to tighten the belt and cut spending; the same should go for the government, rather than always demanding "more revenue".
I, too, have read articles about items purchased and not used by the government are simply buried. Just because SS and Medicare entail the largest expenditures, doesn't mean they have to be the first cut; like I said before, get rid of the waste and fraud and they wouldn't have to touch those programs. Maybe they could cut pay for Congress and some of the other government people in DC - none of them are worth what they get paid anyway.
"They themselves are calling the "sequester" a victory.." Personally, I think they all (both sides) see the sequester as a victory. The Republicans don't have to give on revenue, while the Democrats don't have to decide which programs get cut, because the cuts are "across the board".
Bottom line is: he wanted revenue, he got revenue.
As brice said, when "we, the people" run out of money in our budget, we have to tighten the belt and cut spending; the same should go for the government, rather than always demanding "more revenue".
I, too, have read articles about items purchased and not used by the government are simply buried. Just because SS and Medicare entail the largest expenditures, doesn't mean they have to be the first cut; like I said before, get rid of the waste and fraud and they wouldn't have to touch those programs. Maybe they could cut pay for Congress and some of the other government people in DC - none of them are worth what they get paid anyway.
"They themselves are calling the "sequester" a victory.." Personally, I think they all (both sides) see the sequester as a victory. The Republicans don't have to give on revenue, while the Democrats don't have to decide which programs get cut, because the cuts are "across the board".
"They made a deal in January and the President got his tax increase, now he wants more. What happened to standing by your word?"
He's not asking for tax increases though. He wants to close all those loopholes that the republican party and Mitt Romney acknowledged needed closing. They Ran on it for god sake...It seems like the GOP is not standing by their word
There's no reason in the world they can't cut this 2.4% of the budget without cutting SS and Medicare, veterans care or the military. That's the typical scare tactic both sides have been using for far too long.
I agree! However I do believe the CBO when they say both cuts and revenues are needed to reduce the deficit. I think the reason SS medicare and the Military were included in the "sequester' is because that is where the bulk of the spending is..The GOP is not worried because they want significant cuts even at the expense of the military which they fought for spending on that for so long. They themselves are calling the "sequester" a victory..
He's not asking for tax increases though. He wants to close all those loopholes that the republican party and Mitt Romney acknowledged needed closing. They Ran on it for god sake...It seems like the GOP is not standing by their word
There's no reason in the world they can't cut this 2.4% of the budget without cutting SS and Medicare, veterans care or the military. That's the typical scare tactic both sides have been using for far too long.
I agree! However I do believe the CBO when they say both cuts and revenues are needed to reduce the deficit. I think the reason SS medicare and the Military were included in the "sequester' is because that is where the bulk of the spending is..The GOP is not worried because they want significant cuts even at the expense of the military which they fought for spending on that for so long. They themselves are calling the "sequester" a victory..
Well, some revenue has been given.
Here's what I think needs to happen, right now. We get used to the sequester. We take the sequester as the "new us" and learn to live with less (as far as the government is concerned.) That is a harsh reality with all of us and our personal budgets, and somehow as individuals we manage. It might not be pretty, but we manage.
This is what I have been talking about for years. We have to change the system. All of it. Everything needs to change and it might sure as h3ll sting for a while. Spending habits are horrible with the government. If they need 27 new toilet seats, they by 2700 at an inflated price. That doesn't make any sense, yet it happens all the time.
I've heard of the government burying truck loads of tools, computers, etc. Burying them... not liquidating them... putting them in a hole in the ground and covering it with dirt. This stuff happens...
Here's what I think needs to happen, right now. We get used to the sequester. We take the sequester as the "new us" and learn to live with less (as far as the government is concerned.) That is a harsh reality with all of us and our personal budgets, and somehow as individuals we manage. It might not be pretty, but we manage.
This is what I have been talking about for years. We have to change the system. All of it. Everything needs to change and it might sure as h3ll sting for a while. Spending habits are horrible with the government. If they need 27 new toilet seats, they by 2700 at an inflated price. That doesn't make any sense, yet it happens all the time.
I've heard of the government burying truck loads of tools, computers, etc. Burying them... not liquidating them... putting them in a hole in the ground and covering it with dirt. This stuff happens...
They made a deal in January and the President got his tax increase, now he wants more. What happened to standing by your word?
There's no reason in the world they can't cut this 2.4% of the budget without cutting SS and Medicare, veterans care or the military. That's the typical scare tactic both sides have been using for far too long.
Simply cutting waste and fraud from those programs would make a pretty big dent.
There's no reason in the world they can't cut this 2.4% of the budget without cutting SS and Medicare, veterans care or the military. That's the typical scare tactic both sides have been using for far too long.
Simply cutting waste and fraud from those programs would make a pretty big dent.
As long as revenue is on the table, NO deal will be made. Repubs are NOT budging..They want ONLY spending cuts..Cuts that they know are no popular so they will NOT say what cuts but expect the President to do all the cutting for them...Talk about not compromising....This $hit is CRAZY! I hope they all get voted out in 2014..Fingers crossed....
Now the President is talking about making cuts to SS and medicare, hopefully they will come to the table with some revenue..I doubt it though!
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-renews-offer-cut-social-safety-nets-064927297--business.html
Now the President is talking about making cuts to SS and medicare, hopefully they will come to the table with some revenue..I doubt it though!
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-renews-offer-cut-social-safety-nets-064927297--business.html
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
