Lets talk 2012.

[squishyx]

Squishy, of course you're right that bills come from lawmakers. But when the president says he has a jobs plan, I want to hear exactly what it entails. I want to hear his cutting suggestions, but, what a shock, the empty suit doesn't have any.

Why would you expect a 450b jobs bill to include spending cuts? Not only would immediate cuts likely offset any job growth this bill created but he's a democrat and it goes against his political ideology. The way he would probably like to pay for this is to tax the rich, since that seems impossible in this political atmosphere he left it up to congress to figure out if they want to fund this or not in a way they deem appropriate.

Is that the best approach? maybe not, but it is at least status quo, and what I can't figure out is why a lot of the same people that didn't mind handing Bush a blank check for two wars or medicare part D all of a sudden are having this crisis on conscious and can't vote for something unless it's accompanied by offsetting revenues; which by the way can not be tax increases despite the fact that federal taxes are at historic lows.

[Jerrydevil]

Why would you expect a 450b jobs bill to include spending cuts?

That's what Obama proposed. He proposed to tack on $450 billion to the $1-point-whatever trillion in cuts promised in the debt ceiling compromise.

[squishyx]

That's what Obama proposed. He proposed to tack on $450 billion to the $1-point-whatever trillion in cuts promised in the debt ceiling compromise.

Doesn't necessarily mean cuts, I don't think the "super committee" has ruled out new taxes yet.

[Daniel]

Which is why the corporate owned news media will not allow him in the discussion. The same reason Health Care, Corporate Business abuses, environmental issues and workers rights are not allowed to be discussed in a serious fashion.

Say what? Those issues are covered in the news all the time, if not ad nauseum. I'm not sure what you mean by something being discussed in a "serious fashion" unless it means being discussed in a fashion that supports your world view.

Despite what many people think, Rupert Murdoch does not control the world.

[Daniel]

For example, if the states still appointed the senators then I think we would have less pork going through Congress, since one half of Congress wouldn't have to pander directly to the people.

Pork is more or less a rounding error on the federal budget. If we want to take cutting spending seriously, everything has to be on the table -- that includes social security and medicare (means test them) and military spending (an end to all nation building ventures which means cutting the size of the army).

[Devils731]

Pork is more or less a rounding error on the federal budget. If we want to take cutting spending seriously, everything has to be on the table -- that includes social security and medicare (means test them) and military spending (an end to all nation building ventures which means cutting the size of the army).

That quote was just listing one example on why having the state legislators have the final say in senators was better than having the Senate be directly voted on by the people. It really wasn't talking about balancing budgets, although I do think it might help, since Senators would hopefully try to get some power and responsibilities back to the states and away from the federal gov't.

[squishyx]

I want to hear exactly what it entails. I want to hear his cutting suggestions, but, what a shock, the empty suit doesn't have any.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-propose-1-5-trillion-tax-revenue-024632167.html

You may not like or agree with his proposals, but I would hope we can now put to rest the argument that he hasn't put down a plan.

[devilsadvoc8]

Haven't we already counted the afghan war savings three or four times already? Another budgetary trick used by both sides.

At the end of the day it is a meaningless proposal as Obama has included items that the repubs have said aren't negotiable. So we have a proposal that was made to be a political gesture not a real proposal. The cycle of incompentence continues in Washington as both sides would rather be utter a$$holes than do anything productive.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Isn't this the same empty suit who read off his teleprompter that, "you don't raise taxes in a recession"

Pandering to his base of zealots. Or he got a new writer for the teleprompter.

[Pepperkorn]

Obama is a failure (all by himself - no need to blame uncooperative Republicans) and Rick Perry is a lying opportunist (campaigned for Gore in 2000 - talk a bout a flip flopping opportunist dirt bag - anyone who supports him is a fool - even my republican mother says the guy is a worse self-worshiping crook than Bill Clinton).

Ron Paul is not going to fly -- and he mealy mouths as much as the next guy - but it comes off weak not like he's bullsh!tting in the name of compromise for his teabagger could-be supporters. Speak your mind consistently don't fold like a deck of card when you think you might win if you say what the people want to hear instead of what you think -- learn nothing from McCain's run? He's an a$$hole anyhow.

Everyone is an ass. The discussion here is pointless because no one can even approach anything close to truth -- just their opinion. And opinions aren't wrong canNot by thier very nature be wrong -- just misguided and there's no re-directing them - and there is no telling who's opinion is best for the country. Most of you guys hold opinions that are just THE WORST thing for your SELVES! You're just too puffed up with winning a bullsh!t argument to even take the time to see any kind of truth.

ANY kind of truth. It's shocking to me -- you guys really don't care. You dont care to be informed. You dont care who is representing you. No one knows what anyone stands for -- it's just shocking. Shocking. not even MEDIA rules you all -- it's gossip. Plain and simple party-line gossip, heresay and wishful thinking.

Mind blowing.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[squishyx]

Haven't we already counted the afghan war savings three or four times already? Another budgetary trick used by both sides.

At the end of the day it is a meaningless proposal as Obama has included items that the repubs have said aren't negotiable. So we have a proposal that was made to be a political gesture not a real proposal. The cycle of incompentence continues in Washington as both sides would rather be utter a$$holes than do anything productive.

Is this really a fair statement to make? One side can dig in on a major issue and say "if this is included, we walk" and then we chide any proposal that includes that issue as just wasting time? I can just imagine nothing ever getting done in the future if a block is going to pick an issue and demand that it be solved their way or they won't let anything pass.

This seems like a pretty bipartisian pitch to me, 800 from tax revenues, 580 from spending cuts, 430 from interest saved that gets to 1.8t ignoring the war savings which covers the debt deal plus the jobs program. If you just look at taxes vs cuts and then compare the composition of our government (from a strictly blue v red perspective) this proposal is giving republicans more then their "share" of control. Rather then say "it's meaningless because republicans have forced themselves into an intractable position, maybe the onus should be on them to not make claims that give them no room to negotiate.

I think it's a good starting point, this is the basic framework that needs to be there with some room to push things around to get votes. If this isn't bipartisian, what is? I'd like to hear what other people would consider bipartisian.

Edited September 19, 2011 by squishyx

[squishyx]

Obama is a failure (all by himself - no need to blame uncooperative Republicans) and Rick Perry is a lying opportunist (campaigned for Gore in 2000 - talk a bout a flip flopping opportunist dirt bag - anyone who supports him is a fool - even my republican mother says the guy is a worse self-worshiping crook than Bill Clinton).

Ron Paul is not going to fly -- and he mealy mouths as much as the next guy - but it comes off weak not like he's bullsh!tting in the name of compromise for his teabagger could-be supporters. Speak your mind consistently don't fold like a deck of card when you think you might win if you say what the people want to hear instead of what you think -- learn nothing from McCain's run? He's an a$$hole anyhow.

Everyone is an ass. The discussion here is pointless because no one can even approach anything close to truth -- just their opinion. And opinions aren't wrong canNot by thier very nature be wrong -- just misguided and there's no re-directing them - and there is no telling who's opinion is best for the country. Most of you guys hold opinions that are just THE WORST thing for your SELVES! You're just too puffed up with winning a bullsh!t argument to even take the time to see any kind of truth.

ANY kind of truth. It's shocking to me -- you guys really don't care. You dont care to be informed. You dont care who is representing you. No one knows what anyone stands for -- it's just shocking. Shocking. not even MEDIA rules you all -- it's gossip. Plain and simple party-line gossip, heresay and wishful thinking.

Mind blowing.

If you are so enlightened, why don't you suggest a candidate that you think would be good in 2012 rather then just rip people apart for having a discussion.

[Pepperkorn]

If you are so enlightened, why don't you suggest a candidate that you think would be good in 2012 rather then just rip people apart for having a discussion.

You're response (and previous tone on this board) hints that you are merely looking for a reason to summarily dismiss all that I have to say rather than give any heartfelt consideration. I therefore do not waste time throwing a name in the ring, but rather ask that you consider your opinion more thoroughly rather than just try to debase deride and derail others

EDIT: and that goes for everyone here, if anyone has a secret jeer in their heart against zeesquish.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[MantaRay]

You're response (and previous tone on this board) hints that you are merely looking for a reason to summarily dismiss all that I have to say rather than give any heartfelt consideration. I therefore do not waste time throwing a name in the ring, but rather ask that you consider your opinion more thoroughly rather than just try to debase deride and derail others

In other words you have nothing to offer.

[Pepperkorn]

In other words you have nothing to offer.

I ask you all to offer more. If you think that's nothing to offer - you've made my point.

[squishyx]

You're response (and previous tone on this board) hints that you are merely looking for a reason to summarily dismiss all that I have to say rather than give any heartfelt consideration. I therefore do not waste time throwing a name in the ring, but rather ask that you consider your opinion more thoroughly rather than just try to debase deride and derail others

EDIT: and that goes for everyone here, if anyone has a secret jeer in their heart against zeesquish.

So you come in here, scold all of us as being blind sheep and then punt when i ask you to suggest someone and accuse me of deriding / derailing others?

You don't even have to give me a name, how about just policy that you think we should head towards? I suggested a candidate given the original thread intent but I'll settle for anything other then pure trolling.

[Pepperkorn]

That my comments are so easily dismissed as trolling by your account proves my entire point.

You're accepting full responsibility for my comments is also very telling. You've already cut everyone else out - held no one accountable for the non-productive discussion but yourself. Is that your intention? Taking the adversarial stance in responding to my post makes your life a heck of a lot harder - makes your fight(or discussion without consensus) that much larger. You may well be wasting time fighting with your friend but you don't know -- because you've attached yourself to a pointless fight. Do you see that? Do you see how you are proving my point here?

[mrthemike]

I just lurk these threads to watch Leeds get owned. It's hilarious.

[squishyx]

That my comments are so easily dismissed as trolling by your account proves my entire point.

You're accepting full responsibility for my comments is also very telling. You've already cut everyone else out - held no one accountable for the non-productive discussion but yourself. Is that your intention? Taking the adversarial stance in responding to my post makes your life a heck of a lot harder - makes your fight(or discussion without consensus) that much larger. You may well be wasting time fighting with your friend but you don't know -- because you've attached yourself to a pointless fight. Do you see that? Do you see how you are proving my point here?

Eh, I wouldn't really say all that but whatever floats your boat. At the end of the day this is a discussion board where people come to share ideas and opinions and I enjoy reading peoples responses because it helps me get perspective. In this instance with you however, I was genuinely curious to see if you wanted to contribute, but it appears as if you are not interested.

Enjoy your day.

[Jerrydevil]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-propose-1-5-trillion-tax-revenue-024632167.html

You may not like or agree with his proposals, but I would hope we can now put to rest the argument that he hasn't put down a plan.

It's about time. And his proposal stinks. Too much taxes and not enough cuts. The wind-down in Afghanistan shouldn't count. I hope the House Republicans stand strong. Screw compromise. Some things are worth fighting for.

[squishyx]

It's about time. And his proposal stinks. Too much taxes and not enough cuts. The wind-down in Afghanistan shouldn't count. I hope the House Republicans stand strong. Screw compromise. Some things are worth fighting for.

What do you think the ratio should look like? I'm not even talking about the Afghanistan savings because Obama gets to 1.8t without them.

[Jerrydevil]

What do you think the ratio should look like? I'm not even talking about the Afghanistan savings because Obama gets to 1.8t without them.

How about 5 to 1?

Our federal government is so big and unwieldy that piling on more taxes is borderline criminal. We're just continuing to try to sustain the unsustainable. Obama's proposal is a big-government proposal. Like you've said before, that's who he is, he's not going to propose something he doesn't believe in.

[Pepperkorn]

See - you two actually have productive discussion here.

Why could you not have said "JerryD and I are having a fun spirited debate, but I agree others are being kind of shallow" once you figured out what I had to say -- but instead you give the shallow posters a bye in jumping in and shutting down anyone and anything you deem a threat. "What side are you on then?" It reads as if you need black or white -- a shade of gray is beyond your consideration and needs to be stopped - CALL IT BLACK OR WHITE OR STFU! Sure -- you were just terse not aggressive. It comes off aggressive though. if you're so enlightened is not a pleasant invitation to discuss.

You responded to me just as if you were a member if congress refusing to even start from a position of productivity. You turned yourself into a target all by yourself. Ruined any fruitful message and then in the end regroup and post some disingenuous bullsh!t up there to save face. You Rick Perry'd You didn't have to defend yourself - you were never under attack. No need to excuse your posting - you are what you are. Learn from it -- and that doesn't mean hone your fighting skills -- it means hone your listening skills - curb your need to throw the first punch before you understand where you stand. Discussion is not fight or flight. You are not so far over your head in the brains department. Relex and listen - learn some diplomacy BEFORE the fact. it's sour after you've already jumped all over someone. and stop thinking you're so bloody right. You were not right. I was not attacking you. and you were not just inviting me to a spirited debate. You were looking to pigeon hole for a battle - not to learn sh!t.

man at least admit you learn from conflict - at least find some place of honesty to originate from.

You should love this response -- you'll use it to learn and shape your future decisions - right? or does that not apply here -- just to your blank and white battles? I'm sorry to think the worst of you -- maybe you will think about what I wrote and relax a little - measure your responses - not lead with an uppercut before you know what the f*** is going on. In any event you've successfully made it all about you so that should be nice.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[squishyx]

How about 5 to 1?

Our federal government is so big and unwieldy that piling on more taxes is borderline criminal. We're just continuing to try to sustain the unsustainable. Obama's proposal is a big-government proposal. Like you've said before, that's who he is, he's not going to propose something he doesn't believe in.

But tax revenues are at all time low's. Historicallywe spend about 21% of GDP and collect from taxes about 19% giving us annual deficits of about 2%. Probably not healthy, but within the range of manageable. Recently spending has gone up to 24% but revenues have dropped to 14%. That's why we are running huge deficits right now, even if you pare back spending to "normal" levels we will still be short 4-5%.

How can you really cut spending from 24% down to the 15-16% area? That's an across the board cut of 30-40% in all spending which is bound to have very negative effects on GDP.

[mrthemike]

Interesting link and charts that may or may not help in this conversation...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/chart-of-the-day-out-of-control-spending-not-really-out-of-control-at-all.php?ref=fpb

In the wake of the Bush tax cuts, and the Great Recession, tax revenue has fallen through the floor to near-historic lows. As a percentage of GDP, it's fallen 24 percent since 2001, and if you correct for inflation, the government is collecting nearly 20 percent less per person than it was a decade ago. At the same time, the population-adjusted costs of mandatory spending programs -- driven by Medicare, including its new prescription drug benefit, and Medicaid -- have increased by over 30 percent. And, of course, defense spending has skyrocketed.