389 replies to this topic

[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 by squishyx, 19 September 2011 - 08:54 AM.

[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 by Pepperkorn, 19 September 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[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 by Pepperkorn, 19 September 2011 - 10:32 AM.

[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.talking...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.

[devilsadvoc8]

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.

Yes I think it is a fair statement. Both sides have labeled issues as lines in the sand (Obama said he will veto any bill with certain criteria as one example). So, if you indicate how critical this legislation is and then include one of the other side's "no go" topics, I do indeed think you are inviting conflict for political purposes instead of compromise.

The 580 from spending cuts is not really spending cuts. I have read that this isn't a reduction in spending but rather a reduction in rates paid to 3rd parties- essentially using their muscle as a quasi monopoly to have suppliers of healthcare products & services to reduce costs. Reducing the providers income is the same as a tax, not a spending cut. See this quote:

"Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers."

That's from Time at this link Time Mag

My issue is very little true spending cuts if at all. Our government is an extremely inefficient spender. Lets cut that waste back. I see a couple posts later you stated something along the lines of spending reductions will reduce GDP. Can you explain that?

[squishyx]

Yes I think it is a fair statement. Both sides have labeled issues as lines in the sand (Obama said he will veto any bill with certain criteria as one example). So, if you indicate how critical this legislation is and then include one of the other side's "no go" topics, I do indeed think you are inviting conflict for political purposes instead of compromise.

I think Obama has said that he won't cut medicaid or medicare unless their are tax increases, while the rhetoric is similar it's not the same. Republicans are claiming an entire issue is off the table under any circumstance, Obama is saying he is willing to compromise if the price is right. I'll agree that both sides should not be entrenching themselves in holes they can't get out of.

The 580 from spending cuts is not really spending cuts. I have read that this isn't a reduction in spending but rather a reduction in rates paid to 3rd parties- essentially using their muscle as a quasi monopoly to have suppliers of healthcare products & services to reduce costs. Reducing the providers income is the same as a tax, not a spending cut. See this quote:

"Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers."

That's from Time at this link Time Mag

I don't understand how a reduction is spending is different then a cut in spending. While this sounds like an unpopular option (and idk if it's true or something I support) it seems like it translate to the fed gov't spending less money, no?

My issue is very little true spending cuts if at all. Our government is an extremely inefficient spender. Lets cut that waste back. I see a couple posts later you stated something along the lines of spending reductions will reduce GDP. Can you explain that?

I'm all for cutting waste but that alone just inst enough.

Jerrydevil was suggesting 5:1 cut v tax ratio, which basically meant getting spending from 24% down to about 16% of GDP which correlates to about a 30-40% over spending cut. The country would absolutely flat line if we tried to do this even over a protracted period of say 10 years. Assuming across the board cuts The fed gov't lose ~3million jobs, probably an equivalent number of state jobs nation wide would be lost as state aid gets cut and they are forced to cut back, seniors would get pinched, welfare rates would soar. It would be disastrous to GDP to cut that much spending, at least over the short to medium term and that's assuming you did even cuts across the board, their is no way republicans would let the defense budget be slashed that much.

Reducing spending by 1-3% of GDP over 10 years is doable, you can compensate the economic loss with GDP growth or tax increases, but trying to cut down 8-9% is too much.

[Kicksave Brodeur!!]

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.

Former wellesley college debate team member? Very impressive.. who knew?

[devilsadvoc8]

I don't understand how a reduction is spending is different then a cut in spending. While this sounds like an unpopular option (and idk if it's true or something I support) it seems like it translate to the fed gov't spending less money, no?

Simple. All this plan is doing is telling a private company that they will get less for their services than they would have before. Simple strong arm tactics that isn't reducing FEDERAL waste/payroll/duplicative/or just plain dumb spending. This is the easy way out and doesn't involve much thought as some bureaucrat will tell BMS or Glaxo that they'll give them x amount less. As a result corporate income will go down hence my comment that it is essentially a tax.

Now a real cut is saying that Agency X has to identify 10% budget cuts of their own choice in the next 6 months. If they don't my opinion is that the management of said agency loses 10% salary until accomplished. Lets get these fat cat big government lifers to cut the fat.

[Devils731]

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

http://www.whitehous...et/Historicals/

I don't buy into the articles notion that everything should be adjusted for inflation and population growth, but military should be adjusted only for inflation. By that logic, the defense spending now should be about the same as in 1800, adjusted for inflation, since population growth doesn't count, but everything else in the budget does get to adjust for population growth.

If we look at the raw numbers, and don't adjust for anything, then the percentage change for some of the different agencies looks like:

Table 5.3—Percentage Distribution of Budget Authority by Agency: 1976–2016

From 2001-2010

National Defense: 128% growth

International Affairs: 174% growth

Energy: 1,159,500% growth

Natural Resources: 71% growth

Agriculture: 19% decrease

Commerce and Housing: Change from 2001-2009: 4,987% growth Change from 2001-2010: 1,536% decrease. A good example of how manipulating a year could drastically change a percentage.

Education: 124% growth

Health: 114% growth

Medicare: 108% growth

Income Security: 131% growth

----------------------------

Total Outlays: 86% growth

----------------------------

So I think we can see that by not adjusting military by population growth that chart made it look like it's spending had exploded crazily when compared to other sectors of the gov't, when in reality it's growth was in the general vicinity of most of the other "bad boys" that get brought up.

I'm not saying someone is wrong if they say military spending should be cut as opposed to something else, more a comment on the chart, which I think was based in an unfair assumption to purposefully create an unfair chart.