One of the Norway "Prisons" that would typically be used to house murders such as the guy from last week...

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/20#post_3402233
Why Obama? Because that is what a LEADER does. Reagan did it with a hostile democratic congress, that wasn't keen on a lot of his ideas. But they still worked together. You blanch at reaganomics...but if you look at manufacturing growth and long term job support growth he had a solid record. Came out of a huge recession and had a booming economy well into Bush's third year. Can you name another President who's policies created as much growth for as long since then? The reason we don't go back to that is the country is a bunch of whiners and selfish brats. Tax credits, reduced taxes, entitlements have all taken hold.....and "we" dont want to give those up.
The reason Boehner isn't getting as much support from some republicans and the tea party is this simple aspect. He is compromising. He is actually trying to work between both groups. Your major media isn't reporting this, but your smaller media is. He is trying to meet Obama and the democrats half way. The other republicans and tea party members want bigger cuts, and thus aren't suppotting his bill. The democrats and obama want less cuts and higher taxes. Boehner is gonna kill his political career because he is the only one compromising between everyone....something politics used to be. I love how you bash him with out even knowing why some in his party aren't supporting him. Boehner is doing exactly what YOU have said needs to be done on many occasions. Compromise and work it out.
Obama was elected to LEAD.......and you ask why he should lead?
Darth (Let them default) Tang
Reagan raised the debt limit 18 times during his tenure, and never got involved with any of them while being debated in Congress. Guess Congress wasn't as divided as it is today.
Obama is leading. He tried several times to keep Boehner at the table. They came REAL close to an agreement last week (or was it two weeks ago), then Obama asked for the extra $400 billion in tax revenues. Boehner then walked out and refused to return. When Boehner proposed the Cut, Cap, and Balanced bill, he was literally screaming at his fellow Republicans to "get their asses in line" and support his bill. After that bill failed, Reid came back with his alternatives, which Boehner refused because it still included tax revenues. So you hae Boehner leading the House tabling ANYTHING Reid proposes, and you have Reid in the Senate tabling ANYTHING Boehner proposes. Now that the clock is winding down, Boehner and McConnell are bypassing Reid, and going straight to Obama. If this thing doesn't happen by Tuesday, everyone of them will be gone come 2012. At this point, that's probably the best thing that could happen.

 

[stdreb27]

wow, you're perception is so wrong it isn't even funny...
But the reason republican's aren't following in The Gipper's footsteps is because they're blithering idiots.

 

[darthtang aw]

Reagan raised the debt limit 18 times during his tenure, and never got involved with any of them while being debated in Congress.  Guess Congress wasn't as divided as it is today.
 
Obama is leading.  He tried several times to keep Boehner at the table.  They came REAL close to an agreement last week (or was it two weeks ago), then Obama asked for the extra $400 billion in tax revenues.  Boehner then walked out and refused to return.  When Boehner proposed the Cut, Cap, and Balanced bill, he was literally screaming at his fellow Republicans to "get their asses in line" and support his bill.  After that bill failed, Reid came back with his alternatives, which Boehner refused because it still included tax revenues.  So you hae Boehner leading the House tabling ANYTHING Reid proposes, and you have Reid in the Senate tabling ANYTHING Boehner proposes.  Now that the clock is winding down, Boehner and McConnell are bypassing Reid, and going straight to Obama.  If this thing doesn't happen by Tuesday, everyone of them will be gone come 2012.  At this point, that's probably the best thing that could happen. 
 
The house and senate were controlled by democrats at that time.....so of course there was no division. Yet reagan was able to work with democrats hostile towards his views.......clinton worked with republicans hostile towards his views......LEADERS:......obama....can't work with anyone hostile towards his views. The only bills that pass are when he has a majority in senate and house....and even that was a fiasco for healthcare......he can't even lead his own party.....he is no leader.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402285
The house and senate were controlled by democrats at that time.....so of course there was no division. Yet reagan was able to work with democrats hostile towards his views.......clinton worked with republicans hostile towards his views......LEADERS:......obama....can't work with anyone hostile towards his views. The only bills that pass are when he has a majority in senate and house....and even that was a fiasco for healthcare......he can't even lead his own party.....he is no leader.
Reagan didn't have a bunch of Tea Baggers that sit around reading the Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly playbook. You say Boehner and the Republicans have tried compromising with Obama and the Democrats. Guess it depends on which media outlet you listen to. I watched C-Span this afternoon when the House was discussing the Reid bill. If you call that "compromising", then your definition of the word is WAY different than mine.

 

[bionicarm]

I read this regarding Reid's bill -
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Reid proposal would reduce deficits by abut $2.1 trillion over ten years, which would be about a 16 percent reduction in future deficits, using the CBO's most plausible budget scenario.
But Republicans contend that $1 trillion of those savings are illusory since they're based on the anticipated cost of troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan until 2021. Obama and Congress have already decided to end those deployments well before 2021.
Without those savings from Iraq, Afghanistan and other "overseas contingency operations," Reid's proposal would cut deficits by a total of $1.1 trillion, compared to $917 billion in deficit cutting in House Speaker John Boehner's plan, which the House approved but the Senate rejected Friday.
So they're saying Reid's bill is a smoke screen because he's including proposed reductions due to the pull-out of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it continues saying that Reid's bill would still reduce the deficit $1.1 trillion, as opposed to $917 billion in Boehner's plan. So why is the House rejecting Reid's bill? Isn't $1.1 trillion bigger than $917 billion? I mean even those guys know simple math.

 

[darthtang aw]

I read this regarding Reid's bill -

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Reid proposal would reduce deficits by abut $2.1 trillion over ten years, which would be about a 16 percent reduction in future deficits, using the CBO's most plausible budget scenario.
But Republicans contend that $1 trillion of those savings are illusory since they're based on the anticipated cost of troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan until 2021. Obama and Congress have already decided to end those deployments well before 2021.
Without those savings from Iraq, Afghanistan and other "overseas contingency operations," Reid's proposal would cut deficits by a total of $1.1 trillion, compared to $917 billion in deficit cutting in House Speaker John Boehner's plan, which the House approved but the Senate rejected Friday.


So they're saying Reid's bill is a smoke screen because he's including proposed reductions due to the pull-out of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it continues saying that Reid's bill would still reduce the deficit $1.1 trillion, as opposed to $917 billion in Boehner's plan. So why is the House rejecting Reid's bill? Isn't $1.1 trillion bigger than $917 billion? I mean even those guys know simple math.
See this is why I take issue with your views. You base them on broad generalizations. Where are the cuts in the two bills? Does reids bill decrease the deficit through more tax increases than spending cuts? See what you aren't understanding and why the informed general publis has a problem with this it still leaves our country with an annual trillion dollar budget deficit easily.even without the wars. Even under the idiot" bush" without the war costs only maintained a 400 billion dollar budget deficit.
Stop looking at the bottomline of the defecit reduction and tell me how each plan gets to those numbers....you did the same thing with the healthcare plan. Which is why this country has this mess. You don't care enough to investigate how this will occur. You just read what the end numbers will be. Like everyone else.
Darth (let them default) Tang

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/20#post_3402202
See you're still drinking the Republican Kool-Aide. Boehner being complimented? I watched Fox the other night, and they were saying if this debt ceiling debacle doesn't get resolved, he'll probably get bounced as Speaker. Boehner's initial "Cut, Cap, and Balanced" bill was sent back to him after the CBO discredited the deficit reduction numbers he proposed. He barely was able to get support from the Tea Party and fellow Republicans to get it passed. This last bill Boehner introduced included a "demand" that the Balanced Budget Amendment had to be PASSED before they would agree to another debt limit increase in 6 months. How the heck do you expect an amendment to the Constitution get passed in a year, much less 6 months? As far as the "extra taxes" Obama wanted, it was $400 billion. You could whack one pork-barrel project to cover that amount.
So now the House voted down Reid's proposal. Like I said, this is partisan politics at its finest. Neither side is willing to bend. Boehner and McConnell were just on, and now they claim it's up to Obama to do something. Why Obama? He can only make recommendations to what should be in the bill. It's up to the House and Senate to actually create the bill to be voted on, then the President can either sign it into law, or veto it. It's the perfect political move. Do nothing, blame Obama, then watch his head roll come 2012. They insist some compromise will occur before Tuesday.
0bama, Harry Reid and several other Democrats have complimented Boehner. His balanced budget bill would have AUTOMATICALLY increased the debt limit had the house and senate passed the amendment. Interesting idea.... Why 0bama? He begged for the GD job, what do you say he tries doing it? He can lay out specifics that congress can go on. His trouble is his base. At this point 0bama is the one who stands to win if nothing is passed. He can blame the failure of his economic recovery play on the Republicans. Of course most of the media will omit the fact the economy has been falling back into recession for the last 6 months.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402301
Reagan didn't have a bunch of Tea Baggers that sit around reading the Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly playbook. You say Boehner and the Republicans have tried compromising with Obama and the Democrats. Guess it depends on which media outlet you listen to. I watched C-Span this afternoon when the House was discussing the Reid bill. If you call that "compromising", then your definition of the word is WAY different than mine.
Your linking O'reilly to the Tea Party is ignorant, plan and simple. Have you ever listened to him? I doubt it...... They would see him as a RINO even though he isn't a Republican

 

[reefraff]

Reid's bill seeks to have savings from already planned troop drawdowns included in this NEW negotiation. The real cuts he is proposing are mostly in military which is where the Republican opposition is coming from.
The people who seem to know what they are talking about are saying McConnel's plan will likely be the one that finally goes through.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402317
See this is why I take issue with your views. You base them on broad generalizations. Where are the cuts in the two bills? Does reids bill decrease the deficit through more tax increases than spending cuts? See what you aren't understanding and why the informed general publis has a problem with this it still leaves our country with an annual trillion dollar budget deficit easily.even without the wars. Even under the idiot" bush" without the war costs only maintained a 400 billion dollar budget deficit.
Stop looking at the bottomline of the defecit reduction and tell me how each plan gets to those numbers....you did the same thing with the healthcare plan. Which is why this country has this mess. You don't care enough to investigate how this will occur. You just read what the end numbers will be. Like everyone else.
Darth (let them default) Tang
Darth, I do research. When you were arguing about all the fallacies in Obamacare, I provided a detailed timeline that stated every single medical item that was in the bill (no, it didn't include all the hidden pork legislation), when it would be implemented, and what benefits it provided. If you didn't bother to look at it, and "based your opinions on broad generalizations", then that's your problem not mine.
All I frickin did was cut/paste the latest information on the debt ceiling debacle, and asked why the Republicans were complaining about Reid's bill when it cut more from the deficit than Boehner's. Have YOU seen a detailed proposal, or what's contained in these two bills? They probably haven't posted them on the government web site because they're either changing what's in it on the fly, or don't want to waste the space because they know it's going to be killed before it reaches the Senators or Reps for a vote.
The last thing I read, neither Reid's or Boehner's proposal included tax increases. It seems those were off the table. So yeah, Reid probably said that in order to reduce the deficit, you're going to have to do some deep cuts in one of the Big 3. The Democrats don't want to cut SS or Medicare, so that means the military is the only thing left. Since the Republicans motto is "Guns, Guts, and God", they won't allow any further cuts in the defense budget.
Everyone needs to make sacrifices. People on SS and Medicare will have to forgo COLA raises, lose certain benefits, and have to do with less. The military needs to do away with wanting new 'toys', and do more cutbacks with our exit from Iraq and Afghanistan. The lower and middle class will take a bit hit due to our AAA Rating most likely dissolving. Higher interest rates, lower stock and 401K values, higher food and commodity prices. The wealthy? They'll take the smallest hit. But hey, that's the Republican Way.
Bionic (Darth still in denial) Arm

 

[prh123]

Wrong blog

 

[reefraff]

"It's the attitude stupid"
Once a majority of DC politicians accept the fact that it isn't their money things will get better. These clowns talk about a million bucks like it's pocket change and throw it at some REALLY stupid projects.
Want to raise my taxes? First cut foreign aid, especially to those countries that oppose us. Stop giving government services to illegal aliens, Stop spending federal funds for BS like turtle tunnels under highways. TRY eliminating all the STUPID spending first. Asking for higher taxes from any group should always be the last resort, not the preferred method.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402407
"It's the attitude stupid"
Once a majority of DC politicians accept the fact that it isn't their money things will get better. These clowns talk about a million bucks like it's pocket change and throw it at some REALLY stupid projects.
Want to raise my taxes? First cut foreign aid, especially to those countries that oppose us. Stop giving government services to illegal aliens, Stop spending federal funds for BS like turtle tunnels under highways. TRY eliminating all the STUPID spending first. Asking for higher taxes from any group should always be the last resort, not the preferred method.
I agree 100% with your proposals. Unfortunately, those bloated programs only make up 10% - 15% of the annual budget, and probably 5% of the deficit. The Big 3 is where the majority of the money goes. With the Baby Boomers coming of age, it's only going to get worse. There's not enough in SS to "pay the bills" for all those people who put in to that Ponzi scheme back in the 60's. So you either need to make drastic cuts in those puppies, or raise revenues to support them. The only way the Feds know how to raise revenues is by taxes. Unless you want them going back to "investing" in large corporations like Chrysler and GM.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402426
I agree 100% with your proposals. Unfortunately, those bloated programs only make up 10% - 15% of the annual budget, and probably 5% of the deficit. The Big 3 is where the majority of the money goes. With the Baby Boomers coming of age, it's only going to get worse. There's not enough in SS to "pay the bills" for all those people who put in to that Ponzi scheme back in the 60's. So you either need to make drastic cuts in those puppies, or raise revenues to support them. The only way the Feds know how to raise revenues is by taxes. Unless you want them going back to "investing" in large corporations like Chrysler and GM.

They are going to have to means test social security and Medicare. Removing the FICA cap wont do diddly. Making people with pensions or those with significant assets pay more for Medicare and knocking even a hundred a month off their SS will have a bigger impact.
What they should do is play with the tax code. Allow those who reach Social Security age but would rather continue working than collecting it to continue working but don't charge them FICA taxes and refund the employers 7.5 to the worker. You'd have plenty of folks put in some extra work years for the 15% pay increase, they'd have more money for retirement, Social Security and more importantly Medicare save money. It's one of those things that doesn't cost the government a dime to do BUT also requires looking outside the box so don't hold your breath..........

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402442
They are going to have to means test social security and Medicare. Removing the FICA cap wont do diddly. Making people with pensions or those with significant assets pay more for Medicare and knocking even a hundred a month off their SS will have a bigger impact.
What they should do is play with the tax code. Allow those who reach Social Security age but would rather continue working than collecting it to continue working but don't charge them FICA taxes and refund the employers 7.5 to the worker. You'd have plenty of folks put in some extra work years for the 15% pay increase, they'd have more money for retirement, Social Security and more importantly Medicare save money. It's one of those things that doesn't cost the government a dime to do BUT also requires looking outside the box so don't hold your breath..........
Another good point. Haven't heard that one yet. I do know the Tea Party wants to explore the Flat Tax Scenario. It would probably work, but they would have to make some exceptions for the lower income earners.

 

[smartorl]

Derailed...............

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402480
Another good point. Haven't heard that one yet. I do know the Tea Party wants to explore the Flat Tax Scenario. It would probably work, but they would have to make some exceptions for the lower income earners.
The best flat tax plan I saw had a floor of 30 grand for a family of 4. Only income above 30 is taxable. I think they need to cap dependent deductions at 2 or 3 with maybe exceptions for foster parents. Never has made much sense to me that people with more kids which use more government resources get to pay less tax.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402535
The best flat tax plan I saw had a floor of 30 grand for a family of 4. Only income above 30 is taxable. I think they need to cap dependent deductions at 2 or 3 with maybe exceptions for foster parents. Never has made much sense to me that people with more kids which use more government resources get to pay less tax.
Again agreed. I know a guy who tried to get as many foster kids as he could so he could get all the benefits and assistance. I guess the Duggars, Tot Mom (the one with 14 kids), and Kate Plus 8 wouldn't be happy with that propoal...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386959/one-of-the-norway-prisons-that-would-typically-be-used-to-house-murders-such-as-the-guy-from-last-week/40#post_3402539
Again agreed. I know a guy who tried to get as many foster kids as he could so he could get all the benefits and assistance. I guess the Duggars, Tot Mom (the one with 14 kids), and Kate Plus 8 wouldn't be happy with that propoal...
Guy I used to work with had a cousin who he had his wife made their living raising foster kids, neither worked. Just raised something like 11 kids at a shot. I thought about buying a big house and taking in two or three but 11? YING!!!!! Still might add a couple rooms downstairs and taking in a couple