While the "Fiscal Cliff" looms..............

[BPTactical]

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/23636-obamas-hawaii-vacation-20-days-at-4-million/

It must be tough to be king.........

[nynco]

Obama should be at Bush Crawford ranch instead. That seems to be ok in the past. What changed...

[Zundfolge]

http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obama-nero1.jpg


Obama should be at Bush Crawford ranch instead. That seems to be ok in the past. What changed...\



Economy was good back then.
Bush went to HIS OWN HOME not an expensive vacation rental.
Bush's trips to Crawford cost a tiny fraction of what it costs to take Obama and his brood to Hawaii.
Obama repeatedly criticized self made capitalists that live like kings with their private jets. Do as he says not as he does?
I thought you liberals voted for Obama because he was "better than Bush"?


If he was going to his home in Chicago this wouldn't be an issue.

[nynco]

Honestly, let the fiscal cliff come. The GOP is not negotiating in good faith. Obama is giving them practically all they want. But the GOP is more interested in defending the taxcuts for the uber rich rather than the health of the nation. We will be fine. The issue will pass and then once the new year comes Obama will be in a better place to sell taxcuts for 98% of America. The GOP minions that signed onto Grover Norquists unconstitutional oath to not raise taxes can then cut taxes without breaking that blood oath. To me its disgusting that these guys signed an oath to abdicate their constitutional duty in regards to taxes to an outside interest. If it were me in charge of the attorney generals office, I would start investigations for treason for anyone that signed that and still will not denounce it.

[Ronin13]

Honestly, let the fiscal cliff come. The GOP is not negotiating in good faith. Obama is giving them practically all they want. But the GOP is more interested in defending the taxcuts for the uber rich rather than the health of the nation. We will be fine. The issue will pass and then once the new year comes Obama will be in a better place to sell taxcuts for 98% of America. The GOP minions that signed onto Grover Norquists unconstitutional oath to not raise taxes can then cut taxes without breaking that blood oath. To me its disgusting that these guys signed an oath to abdicate their constitutional duty in regards to taxes to an outside interest. If it were me in charge of the attorney generals office, I would start investigations for treason for anyone that signed that and still will not denounce it.
Ah jeez, my allergies are really acting up today... *Achh-BULLSHIT-hooo* Also, nynco, I honestly wouldn't keep jumping down your throat if you would stop and learn a few things first...
1- The Bush Ranch in Crawford, TX was hardwired for classified phone, fax, computer, and video. Bush did a lot more work out of there than he did on AFO.
2- Obama has taken more vacations where there is less than ideal conditions for him to carry out top-level presidential work, that's a fact.
3- Obama has played more rounds of golf (average about 4hrs per round) in his first term than Bush did in 2!
4- You (being most democrats) keep stating these tax cuts for the super rich... Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, RAISING taxes on EVERYONE who pays taxes- yes, those tax cuts were for rich, but also for everyone else.
4b- The policies the GOP has been supporting recently are better for the nation than these "Let's eat the rich" policies Obama wants. "Asking them to pay a little more" when they're already paying 65% of the taxes to begin with isn't going to help the economy. Anyone who thinks this, I have some beachfront property just outside Omaha with perfect ocean vistas I'll sell really cheap.
5- Obama is a worse president than Bush. True, Bush wasn't great, but look at the record- Obama doubled, let me put that in another way, DOUBLED! Bush's spending in HALF the time in office. Obama signed the extension of the Patriot Act PLUS the NDAA, that's much worse than just PA by itself. There were no attacks on US Soil/interests after we invaded Afghanistan, UNTIL Obama took office (See: Benghazi). Oh and let's not forget, Obamacare... [facepalm]
Seriously, how many sticks of dynamite do you need to set off in your ears until your head clears?

[nynco]

If Obama is a worse president than Bush then why are corporate profits through the roof now?

[hollohas]

Nynco, you need to re-think your "Obama is giving them practically all they want" comment. The GOP is negotiating on the tax hikes...by all reports they are willing to give into tax hikes but want to keep them to less than $1 trillion. However, the White House is NOT giving into the GOP's desire to cut spending. In fact, they added increased spending to the proposal and want to have unlimited ability to raise the borrowing limits without congressional approval. The White House says they will cut spending, but won't guarantee anything and want to push spending cut talks talks until next year. In other words, the GOP should just take their word for it. We all know how trustworthy a politician's word is.

I'll even use a New York Times article as a reference so you can't argue that it is right-wing biased.

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/timothy_f_geithner/index.html?inline=nyt-per) presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_a_boehner/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.He did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports, but did not specify an amount or any details. And senior Republican aides familiar with the offer said those initial spending cuts might be outweighed by spending increases, including at least $50 billion in infrastructure spending, mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance and a deferral of automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html

[nynco]

We have a massive debt and deficit. Why the heck should we put a cap on revenue (1 trillion) that is FAR short of working to pay off that? You guys don't like the deficit, well lets raise revenue to pay it off. Just like they did during the Eisenhower years.

[Ronin13]

If Obama is a worse president than Bush then why are corporate profits through the roof now?
If Bush is worse than Obama, why is the debt, deficit, and unemployment all way up since Bush has been gone?

[nynco]

You just admitted that taxcuts for the rich, cutting corporate taxes to spur corporations, trickle down economics pretty much the whole GOP outlook on how they deal with the economy does not work.

It won't set in right away. But that is just what you said even if you don't get it yet.

[hollohas]

Why the heck should we put a cap on revenue (1 trillion) that is FAR short of working to pay off that?

But $1.6 trillion will pay it off?

Major cuts need to be made and the White House refuses to make that happen.

[nynco]

I agree major cuts are needed. Start with ending the drug war. The white house just offered billions in cuts to stream line the waste in Medicare? Boehner offered nothing.

[hollohas]

I agree major cuts are needed. Start with ending the drug war. The white house just offered billions in cuts to stream line the waste in Medicare? Boehner offered nothing.

There it is again...the GOP "offered nothing". OMG, they agreed to INCREASE TAXES. That IS what they are offering. Negotiating from NO tax increase, to a rather large tax increase.

Again, the White House says they will make a goal to save $400 billion in Medicare, but won't put that in writing. They want to leave that discussion until next year. I guess we should just trust them...

[nynco]

Hollohas, honestly, can you post a link to the agreement to increase taxes part. News changes fast. I am interested to read the next angle. Its better than sports to me.

[NMB2]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/252359_432709886783182_573411453_n.jpg

[spqrzilla]

Honestly, let the fiscal cliff come. The GOP is not negotiating in good faith. Obama is giving them practically all they want. Objectively false statements. Which is a pattern from you nynco.

And the claim that the no new tax pledge is unconstitutional is irrational looneytoon nonsense.

[spqrzilla]

I agree major cuts are needed. Start with ending the drug war. The white house just offered billions in cuts to stream line the waste in Medicare? Boehner offered nothing.
The medicare "cuts" are fake. Just as the double-counted medicare "savings" in Obamacare was fake.

Fake cuts and new taxes sufficient to cut Obama's deficit by a whole tenth.

That's the White House' joke.

[cstone]

Ship has a leak and is taking on water. You can bale water (raise revenue). You can plug the leak (cut spending). You can do both, but only one is a long term solution. As one of the people who's taxes will be raised, I prefer to plug the leak before you force me to bale faster.

But I lost the election.

Be safe.

[nynco]

Objectively false statements. Which is a pattern from you nynco.

And the claim that the no new tax pledge is unconstitutional is irrational looneytoon nonsense.

In the 112th Congress of the United States, 235 members of the House of Representatives and 41 members of the Senate have signed the pledge created by Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform. The pledge states :


I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.



Norquist and his organization give political support to candidates who make the pledge and work to defeat candidates who do not. To assume office and be paid a salary, members of Congress must take an oath:


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.



The Constitution of the United States, to which signers swear their true faith and allegiance, provides, in Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States ...



The Sixteenth Amendment says:


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived ...



The preemptive and unconditional pledge to Norquist by each signer is a knowing and willful repudiation of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment. The pledge to Norquist makes signers' oath of office to uphold the Constitution a fraud on the Congress and the American people. It is also a probable violation of federal criminal law.

Title 18, Section 1001, of the United States Code says that whoever willfully makes any false statement or representation in any matter coming within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the government of the United States shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than five years. Section 1001 specifically applies to claims for payment of money submitted to Congress. Accordingly, by fraudulent oath of office, Norquist signers claim Congressional salaries in violation of Section 1001.

Norquist signers in the California Legislature pledge that they will "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes." To assume office and be paid a salary, they must swear an oath to uphold both the federal and state constitutions. But the California Constitution says, in Article 13, Section 31:


The power to tax may not be surrendered or suspended by grant or contract.



In view of their pledge to Americans for Tax Reform, signers make a false oath of office, because they have surrendered their power to tax to Norquist, in violation of Section 31. The California Government Code makes each Norquist signer's false oath of office an act of perjury, punishable by imprisonment for two, three, or five years.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/6694:legislators-who-sign-the-antitax-norquist-pledge-are-enemies-of-the-people-and-the-constitution

[nynco]

Ship has a leak and is taking on water. You can bale water (raise revenue). You can plug the leak (cut spending). You can do both, but only one is a long term solution. As one of the people who's taxes will be raised, I prefer to plug the leak before you force me to bale faster.

But I lost the election.

Be safe.

I agree we need to do both.

[hollohas]

Hollohas, honestly, can you post a link to the agreement to increase taxes part. News changes fast. I am interested to read the next angle. Its better than sports to me.

That's not new news, the GOP agreed to $800 billion in new tax revenue back in July to try to avoid this whole thing in the first place. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/22/nation/la-na-obama-boehner-20110723


On Friday, July 15, it seemed the perseverance had paid off.
That day, GOP leaders invited White House officials to Capitol Hill for a private meeting. On the White House side were Chief of Staff William Daley and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. Representing the House were Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the majority leader who has taken a leading role among the conservative flank.
The Republicans made an offer: between $3 trillion and $3.5 trillion in spending reductions, and nearly $800 billion in revenue increases over 10 years through overhauling the tax code. Geithner and Daley took it back to the White House.


However, the White House countered with a proposal for $1.2 Trillion in new revenue.

The GOP put it to a vote (cut, cap and balance act) and it passed the House but didn't in the Senate.

Fast forward to today and the White House wants $1.6 trillion in new revenue. Their number keeps going up...

The GOP went from no new taxes to $800 billion. The White House went from $800 billion to $1.6 trillion. That's not how negotiations work....

[spqrzilla]

The claim that a pledge to oppose taxes is unconstitutional is looney toons. The LIHOP 911 Truthers and the Birthers are more rational than your claim nynco.

Completely looney toons. That the Congress has a power, does not require that a Congressman not pledge not to exercise it.

This is the kind of logic nynco offers.

[Sharpienads]

So basically what nynco is saying is that if you are a congressman, take a principled stance on something like, let's say not raising taxes, and put said stance in writing, you are violating the constitution.

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/brilliant_681.jpg

[nynco]

Spqrzilla read what I just posted. It out lines why an oath to abdicate congresses constitutionally mandated duty is unconstitutional.

Holohaus.... do you honestly think that 1.2 trillion is enough? Neither side is willing to take the hard steps necessary. I say we need to end the distinction between investment income/dividends/carried interest and tax it just the same as all forms of income. We then need to bring back a tariff system like we had from Washington till Reagan. Bringing back tariffs will bring a TON of revenue back into this nation by taxing the rest of the world and encouraging US manufacture.

This is part of the problem... the garbage we see now is not addressing the root cause.

[nynco]

So basically what nynco is saying is that if you are a congressman, take a principled stance on something like, let's say not raising taxes, and put said stance in writing, you are violating the constitution.

Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.

[spqrzilla]

I read it. Its nuts. Raising taxes is not a duty. Its a power. You are nuts. There is no other way to describe the incoherent argument.

It illustrates just how far from reality you are.

[PugnacAutMortem]

Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.

Could you please...PLEASE show me where in the constitution that it MANDATES congressmen to RAISE taxes?

Go ahead...I'll wait.

[spqrzilla]

Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.
It is not "constitutionally mandated" that Congress increase the tax rate. That's utterly insane and incoherent.

Meanwhile, Democrats refuse to even adopt a budget. Which is a violation of the law that Congress is supposed to follow.

[nynco]

When someone is abdicating that power to an outside entity. When someone signs an oath that they will not do their constitutionally mandate role, then it is just what I assert.

What would you say if a soldier swore an oath to not follow the orders of the president but instead to follow the orders of an outsider? Its the same thing.

[PugnacAutMortem]

It is not "constitutionally mandated" that Congress increase the tax rate. That's utterly insane and incoherent.

Meanwhile, Democrats refuse to even adopt a budget. Which is a violation of the law that Congress is supposed to follow.

Preach it brotherman![word]

[Sharpienads]

Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.

So, if a congressman pledges that he will not raise taxes, he is violating the constitution. Utter nonsense.

By your logic, if a congress didn't establish any new post offices or post roads, they would be in violation of the constitution. There are already post offices/roads in place, what if we didn't need any new ones? Must congress establish one just because it's their "constitutional duty" as laid out in Article 1, Section 8? Heaven forbid a congressman sign a pledge that states he won't build any new ones. That would just be treasonous.

[spqrzilla]

Incoherence is all we've been getting from nynco.

[hollohas]

Holohaus.... do you honestly think that 1.2 trillion is enough?

More than enough. The government has a problem with SPENDING too much. When I have a problem spending too much, I don't demand others give me more money so I can fix it. I fix it by reducing my spending.

Governmental deficit spending should be illegal.

[nynco]

So the largest expenditure in the budget is the military. You ready to cut what is not needed? Endless war costs money. I would end the war on drugs. I would also pull out of half the crap holes we are in now. I would also bring back tariffs.

Gov deficit spending should be illegal? lol Tell that to Washington that is how our nation was founded.

[nynco]

So, if a congressman pledges that he will not raise taxes, he is violating the constitution. Utter nonsense.

By your logic, if a congress didn't establish any new post offices or post roads, they would be in violation of the constitution. There are already post offices/roads in place, what if we didn't need any new ones? Must congress establish one just because it's their "constitutional duty" as laid out in Article 1, Section 8? Heaven forbid a congressman sign a pledge that states he won't build any new ones. That would just be treasonous.

If a congressman pledges to an outside entity that he will not do his constitutionally mandated duty then yes it is just what I assert. The pledge is the proof. Like I said either they denounce that pledge or they get booted out of congress for breaking their constitution oath.

[PugnacAutMortem]

If a congressman pledges to an outside entity that he will not do his constitutionally mandated duty then yes it is just what I assert. The pledge is the proof. Like I said either they denounce that pledge or they get booted out of congress for breaking their constitution oath.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question directly. I'm done for the night. I'm going to see Killswitch at the Fox in Boulder. I'm sure your insanity will be here waiting for me when I get back later this weekend.

[Pancho Villa]

The largest single expenditure is the budget, the largest portion of the budget is taken up by entitlements, however.

How about we just cut everything until the budget is balanced, in equal %s?

Also: please, lets hurdle off the fiscal cliff. Only in the government could $100 billion of cuts with a deficit of $1 tillion be considered a disaster.

[nynco]

Have a nice time at the Fox Theater. I did answer the question directly. Try rereading what I said with a clear head. Perhaps a few hours in the mosh pit will get some of that pent up anger out.

If a soldier signs a pledge that they will not follow the orders of the president, which is the duty they swore to, then that would be treason. It is NO DIFFERENT when Congress signs a pledge to an individual or entity that they will not do their job. They can not raise taxes all they want. That is their choice. To sign an OATH not to raise taxes but instead abdicate to Grover Norquists pledge is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[Sharpienads]

What don't you get about taking a pledge not to raise taxes does not violate the oath they took?

And your statement about the military being the largest expenditure is false. At least according to the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42636

[nynco]

The largest single expenditure is the budget, the largest portion of the budget is taken up by entitlements, however.

How about we just cut everything until the budget is balanced, in equal %s?

Also: please, lets hurdle off the fiscal cliff. Only in the government could $100 billion of cuts with a deficit of $1 tillion be considered a disaster.

Soc Securtity is not paid for by general taxes. It is not an entitlement.

[Pancho Villa]

Soc Securtity is not paid for by general taxes. It is not an entitlement.

Sophistry. You are definitely splitting hairs if you are trying to argue that.

If you want, entitlements + SS are the biggest group of items on the budget.

Regardless, I'm totally fine with across-the-board cuts to everything, in the interest of avoiding seriously bad shit down the line.

Edit: Also, unless the pledge has legal power (it doesn't,) it doesn't violate the constitution. A senator or congressman can jaw and sign private, unenforceable agreements all they want, if they don't have the force of law then they have no legal standing, and if they have no legal standing then its not a violation of the constitution since they can just change their minds at any time.

Stop being dumb.

[Sharpienads]

Soc Securtity is not paid for by general taxes. It is not an entitlement.

Keep telling yourself that.

[nynco]

SS is not an entitlement. The population paid into that with a specific tax that was earmarked just for that. What congress did was steal that money and now they want to permanently steal it from people by cutting it. All Americans paid into that, it is not an entitlement. You want to cut something cut congresses benefits first. Soc Security would be viable for ever if we lifted the cap and taxed everyone at the same rate not just hitting the middle class alone.

[Pancho Villa]

SS is not an entitlement. The population paid into that with a specific tax that was earmarked just for that. What congress did was steal that money and now they want to permanently steal it from people by cutting it. All Americans paid into that, it is not an entitlement. You want to cut something cut congresses benefits first. Soc Security would be viable for ever if we lifted the cap and taxed everyone at the same rate not just hitting the middle class alone.

I can't have a discussion with a person that is not oriented to reality.

Here are the relevant facts:

1. There are no sustainable tax rates that would balance the budget, even if you cut the military 100%, given the arc of SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Cuts outside of here buy you time, but I assume we are trying to fix it and not kick the can down the road.
2. If every congresscritter, senator, and cabinet member/the pres made $0/year, it would not be a drop in the bucket.

These are the facts. They are cold and hard, and unforgiving of people of any political bent that wish it were otherwise.

Edit: I'm not shedding any tears since I've grown up in the generation where people understand that we're not getting any SS benefits one way or another, but I can understand if it's frustrating that a fund made to sustain SS has been robbed and now the program is unsustainable. I'm not sure that it would be even with the fund invested conservatively, but hey. It sucks. But that is how things are, and we must deal with it and not how we wish it was.

[nynco]

Here is the relevant fact that you are not acknowledging.... how is Soc Sec paid for? Is it paid for out of the general fund? NO it is paid for out of the payroll tax which makes it NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. It is paid for by citizens directly into that fund. Congress stole the money and now they want to make cuts so they don't have to pay it back.

Those are facts ones that you refuse to acknowledge.

Also you saying that you will never expect to be paid for the money you paid into that is saying that you are OK with congress stealing your money.

[Pancho Villa]

Here is the relevant fact that you are not acknowledging.... how is Soc Sec paid for? Is it paid for out of the general fund? NO it is paid for out of the payroll tax which makes it NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. It is paid for by citizens directly into that fund. Congress stole the money and now they want to make cuts so they don't have to pay it back.

Those are facts ones that you refuse to acknowledge.

Also you saying that you will never expect to be paid for the money you paid into that is saying that you are OK with congress stealing your money.

Congress steals my money all the time. I'm kind of used to it.

[nynco]

A sad reality

[hollohas]

What don't you get about taking a pledge not to raise taxes does not violate the oath they took?

And your statement about the military being the largest expenditure is false. At least according to the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42636

Call me crazy, but I don't think Food Stamps are a "mandatory" expense...

Nynco, SS has become an entitlement because it is paying out more than it takes in. It is a ponzi scheme and we all know it. The chart clearly shows that...Social taxes brought in $819 billion in 2011 and over $1.2 trillion was paid out on SS and Medicare.

I know this country was founded with deficit spending, but we were at war to gain our freedom. That's a little different than deficit spending to provide food stamps, wind turbines and health care. (obviously there are a lot more areas that I think our government shouldn't be spending but they are too numerous to list.) That entire section of the chart listed as "discretionary non-defense spending" should be ZERO. (Expect the veteran's benefits part which should be considered "mandatory spending".) Everything else that falls in that category is the responsibility of the states, charity or private industry.

[spittoon]

entitlements [shithitsfan]cut them to the bone and let's get to work

[nynco]

Call me crazy, but I don't think Food Stamps are a "mandatory" expense...

Nynco, SS has become an entitlement because it is paying out more than it takes in. It is a ponzi scheme and we all know it. The chart clearly shows that...Social taxes brought in $819 billion in 2011 and over $1.2 trillion was paid out on SS and Medicare.

I know this country was founded with deficit spending, but we were at war to gain our freedom. That's a little different than deficit spending to provide food stamps, wind turbines and health care. (obviously there are a lot more areas that I think our government shouldn't be spending but they are too numerous to list.) That entire section of the chart listed as "discretionary non-defense spending" should be ZERO. (Expect the veteran's benefits part which should be considered "mandatory spending".) Everything else that falls in that category is the responsibility of the states, charity or private industry.

Hallohas, spending more than it takes in would not be an issue if the Gov had not stolen the money out of the fund starting in the Reagan years. The interest on that money should more than pay for the baby boomer bulge. Which once that has passed the program will be solvent for a very long time. Discretionary funding does more than you understand. NASA falls under that, so does the national high way system. Those two things have more than paid off in economic benefits than their cost. I want efficient gov not ideological knee jerk hate for gov and slashing just to slash.

[sroz]

Honestly, let the fiscal cliff come. The GOP is not negotiating in good faith. Obama is giving them practically all they want.

What exactly has Obama given them? Please list it all. Just take your time & start at the top of the list. It must be a long one.
[Coffee]

[nynco]

Obama has to be the worst negotiator in history. The idiot starts off with compromise before they even start. Someone give the man a spine.

[Rucker61]

Congress steals my money all the time. I'm kind of used to it.

Where's the [like] button?

[spqrzilla]

So the largest expenditure in the budget is the military. You ready to cut what is not needed? Endless war costs money.
Actually, no, the largest expenditure isn't the military. Its entitlement spending.

[Rucker61]

entitlements [shithitsfan]cut them to the bone and let's get to work

What level is "cut to the bone"?

[spqrzilla]

Soc Securtity is not paid for by general taxes. It is not an entitlement.
Also false. Social Security does get funding from general revenues currently, because it is not collecting enough money through payroll taxes to match its expenditures.

[nynco]

It does that because the congress decided to raid it starting in the Reagan years. We can end that by raising the ceiling to reflect what todays dollar is worth or take off the cap completely, cut the rate in half and it will be solvent for ever. It is where it is because only the middle class pays the bulk of it. Once you make more than 250K you stop paying into it. So it is a regressive tax structure that hits the poor and the middle class disproportionaly more.

[spqrzilla]

The interest on that money should more than pay for the baby boomer bulge.
There is no "interest" on the social security funds which the Federal govt moved to general spending. Because that money is not "invested".

Discretionary funding does more than you understand. NASA falls under that, so does the national high way system. Those two things have more than paid off in economic benefits than their cost. I want efficient gov not ideological knee jerk hate for gov and slashing just to slash.
The national highway system is paid through fuel taxes, which is equivalent to the kind of direct link between taxation and spending that you worship with social security but forget so conveniently.
NASA has not "paid off" in economic benefits more than its cost at all. All the supposed "spin offs" of NASA are propaganda.

[spqrzilla]

Obama has to be the worst negotiator in history. The idiot starts off with compromise before they even start. Someone give the man a spine.
Obama has not presented any compromise at all. Another false statement by you.

Obama's idea of "compromise" is to increase his demands. Its what he has done this week. Its why he was thrown out of negotiations by Democrats in summer of 2011.

[spqrzilla]

It does that because the congress decided to raid it starting in the Reagan years. We can end that by raising the ceiling to reflect what todays dollar is worth or take off the cap completely, cut the rate in half and it will be solvent for ever. It is where it is because only the middle class pays the bulk of it. Once you make more than 250K you stop paying into it. So it is a regressive tax structure that hits the poor and the middle class disproportionaly more.

If you are going to raise the cap on contributions, then you'll have to raise the cap on benefits. If not, then its not an insurance system paid for by contributions but an entitlement as you denied earlier.

And you are incoherent again, you don't "stop paying" into social security at the cap. You just don't pay more social security taxes above the cap, you still pay the social security taxes for the base amount. Your benefits are also capped.

[nynco]

Obama started off with comprise right off the bat. The fool said he would look at "entitlement spending". F' that, don't balance the budget off the backs of the poor and the old when business is making record profits and the uber rich are paying the lowest tax rate in US history. Obama is spineless.

[Teufelhund]

So. . . I'm just curious: Does anyone here have an employer that pays for your vacations? Or is that just reserved for those in the highest of offices and without the approval of those footing the bill (taxpayers)?

[Rucker61]

All the supposed "spin offs" of NASA are propaganda.

Seriously?

[nynco]

If you are going to raise the cap on contributions, then you'll have to raise the cap on benefits. If not, then its not an insurance system paid for by contributions but an entitlement as you denied earlier.

And you are incoherent again, you don't "stop paying" into social security at the cap. You just don't pay more social security taxes above the cap, you still pay the social security taxes for the base amount. Your benefits are also capped.

You don't stop paying into it once you hit the cap? Does a person who makes 1 million pay anymore into Soc Sec than one who makes 250K. No because the CAP is the point where they stop paying into it. So person who pays the full burden at 250K is paying a higher percentage than the person making 1 million.

[Rucker61]

So. . . I'm just curious: Does anyone here have an employer that pays for your vacations? Or is that just reserved for those in the highest of offices and without the approval of those footing the bill (taxpayers)?

I get paid vacations.

[Teufelhund]

I get paid vacations.

And they pay all the expenses too? Sweet! Are you guys hiring?

[nynco]

So. . . I'm just curious: Does anyone here have an employer that pays for your vacations? Or is that just reserved for those in the highest of offices and without the approval of those footing the bill (taxpayers)?

Yeah many employers do for their execs and they then write it off so the tax payers then subsidize their travels. They go to conferences in Cancun for some stupid thing and attend a class or two and then write the whole trip off as a business expense. Happens all the time.

[brutal]

You don't stop paying into it once you hit the cap? Does a person who makes 1 million pay anymore into Soc Sec than one who makes 250K. No because the CAP is the point where they stop paying into it. So person who pays the full burden at 250K is paying a higher percentage than the person making 1 million.

[facepalm]

SS tax is capped on an annual basis and resets Jan 1. Benefit payments are also capped. Regardless of what you make, when you hit the cap, the SS tax deduction stops (Medicare does not.) You have paid in the maximum amount required for "guaranteed" benefits that are CAPPED. Where does this $250k number come from? SS employee tax for 2013 caps at $110,100. It's a 6.2% rate (6.2% SS, 1.45% Medicare) on the first $110,100 whether you make $110,100 or $110,100,100. I'll say that again, 6.2% of $110,100 (2012).

When you withdraw (if you get too), you withdraw based on the amount you paid in over your working lifetime. If you made more than the other guy and maxed every year for say 30 years, you get more benefits, but never more than the max allowed, currently $2,384 for a single wage earner. Whether you made $1Mil every year for 30 years, or just hit the cap each year, you get the same benefit payment. So now does the person that made less, but paid in the same amount benefit more? What part of this don't you understand? Do you read your annual SS statement?

[palepainter]

It's a great way to get audited....
k

[Rucker61]

And they pay all the expenses too? Sweet! Are you guys hiring?

Don't I wish. We're hiring in Taiwan and Shanghai. How's your Mandarin?

[brutal]

Yeah many employers do for their execs and they then write it off so the tax payers then subsidize their travels. They go to conferences in Cancun for some stupid thing and attend a class or two and then write the whole trip off as a business expense. Happens all the time.

You so have no fucking clue about the business world. Execs and sales folks are almost always performance based and get perks when they hit their numbers.

[nynco]

Why should I the taxpayer subsidize their perks?

[spqrzilla]

We haven't found a world in which nynco has a clue. That's not a fantasy world, that is.

[spqrzilla]

Why should I the taxpayer subsidize their perks?

They shouldn't.
http://nation.foxnews.com/gsa-scandal/2012/04/11/gsa-employees-travel-hawaii-five-days-one-hour-ribbon-cutting

[nynco]

That was wrong. Just as wrong as some exec abusing tax write offs.

[Rucker61]

Yeah many employers do for their execs and they then write it off so the tax payers then subsidize their travels. They go to conferences in Cancun for some stupid thing and attend a class or two and then write the whole trip off as a business expense. Happens all the time.

I'm going to China in a week. That expense is a tax-deductible expense for my employer. Yes, some trips are boon-doggles. They all aren't, though.

Here's a clue: No one here can fix the tax code. Quit posting here about it. Write your representative and Senator.

[sroz]

Obama started off with comprise right off the bat. The fool said he would look at "entitlement spending". F' that, don't balance the budget off the backs of the poor and the old when business is making record profits and the uber rich are paying the lowest tax rate in US history. Obama is spineless.

So I'll ask again. Exactly what entitlement spending cuts did YOUR fool offer up. You talk a lot of generalities, but you really don't say crap. Hot air. Give specifics or stfu.

[Rucker61]

So I'll ask again. Exactly what entitlement spending cuts did YOUR fool offer up. You talk a lot of generalities, but you really don't say crap. Hot air. Give specifics or STFU.

What entitlement cuts should we make?

[sroz]

What entitlement cuts should we make?

I didn't make the statement & never said we should. I'm certainly not aware of any Obama has offered up. Are you?

[stevelkinevil]

We have a massive debt and deficit. Why the heck should we put a cap on revenue (1 trillion) that is FAR short of working to pay off that? You guys don't like the deficit, well lets raise revenue to pay it off. Just like they did during the Eisenhower years.

Ugh, I generally stay out of these but this just infuriates me. Let me help you with an example. I once had a relatively successful small business, when it failed my income was cut to about 1/20th what it once was. This necessitated that I adjust my spending, in another words cut it all acrossed the board. I was forced to live within my means, millions of people do it every damned day. Conversely this government and dems in particular (and sadly many reps) will not only not consider the massive cuts in spending that are necessary but refuse to even consider cuts in the GROWTH of spending. This would essentially be like a person in my situation getting every credit card and loan I could and increase my spending regardless of what is coming in. Increase revenue? well I didn't have access to OPP (other peoples pockets) so that wasn't an option for me, and it shouldn't be for the out of control federal gov either. Stop calling it "raising revenue" call it what it is, theft, its what all governments eventually take part in, cannibalization of their citizens.

[Rucker61]

I didn't make the statement & never said we should. I'm certainly not aware of any Obama has offered up. Are you?

No, and sorry if it came across in an accusatory fashion. That was a question to the forum: what cuts in entitlements should we make? How much in total do we need to cut?

[nynco]

Stop calling it "raising revenue" call it what it is, theft, its what all governments eventually take part in, cannibalization of their citizens.

Taxes are not theft. That is extremist talk. Taxes are part of living in any nation in the world from the existence of time. Tax structure is written into the Constitution. If you can't live with that "theft" find a nation that exists without taxes... hint there is none.

[sroz]

No, and sorry if it came across in an accusatory fashion. That was a question to the forum: what cuts in entitlements should we make? How much in total do we need to cut?

See where you're coming from. Not a fan of either side on this topic. I would certainly look at spending first & revenue second. Just makes sense to me.

[stevelkinevil]

Taxes are not theft. That is extremist talk. Taxes are part of living in any nation in the world from the existence of time. Tax structure is written into the Constitution. If you can't live with that "theft" find a nation that exists without taxes... hint there is none.

You are a downright clown. Prior to 1913 there were no income taxes (which was obviously what I was referencing), taxing a mans personal income is theft, and our founding fathers agreed, but what the hell would a libtard sheep like you know of such things. If believing in a true constitutionalist government makes me an extremist than so be it. BTW you may want to watch throwing around the extremist tag, for if people like yourself get their way you may find yourself tagged that way one day.

[nynco]

Ok I agree that there were no income taxes. But I grow tired of the all taxes are theft mime. Now as you alluded to, taxes for most of the earlier parts of this nations came from... where. IMPORT TARIFFS Our economy has been in the red ever since we started to eliminate those in the 1980s. That should be how we fix our fiscal mess. Not cuts to Grandmas Soc Sec.

[stevelkinevil]

Ok I agree that there were no income taxes. But I grow tired of the all taxes are theft mime. Now as you alluded to, taxes for most of the earlier parts of this nations came from... where. IMPORT TARIFFS Our economy has been in the red ever since we started to eliminate those in the 1980s. That should be how we fix our fiscal mess. Not cuts to Grandmas Soc Sec.

Import tarriffs should absolutely be the order of the day, along with massive federal government cuts, eliminating the Federal reserve and booting the UN out of this country. Thats a start anyway.

[TFOGGER]

What he actually has proposed as a "compromise" is massive tax increases now, with "possible" reductions in spending increases "next year". Utter bullshit. If he gets the tax increases he is asking for, the congress will simply increase spending to exceed the increase in revenue as they have done since the damn income tax came into being. The only way they are EVER going to start paying down the debt is to have a statutory mandate (Amendment?) that makes a deficit illegal, perhaps by making blanket cuts across the board, with NOTHING untouchable.

[brutal]

Why should I the taxpayer subsidize their perks?

You ever take an economics class? I ask because you have a complete lack of understanding about what fuels the economy. You probably want to limit corporate profits too?

I'm also waiting for your response regarding the SS cap?

Shuckin and jivin' as usual.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[brutal]

Taxes are not theft. That is extremist talk. Taxes are part of living in any nation in the world from the existence of time. Tax structure is written into the Constitution. If you can't live with that "theft" find a nation that exists without taxes... hint there is none.

Show me where income tax is written into the constitution? Clown


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Rucker61]

What he actually has proposed as a "compromise" is massive tax increases now, with "possible" reductions in spending increases "next year". Utter bullshit. If he gets the tax increases he is asking for, the congress will simply increase spending to exceed the increase in revenue as they have done since the damn income tax came into being. The only way they are EVER going to start paying down the debt is to have a statutory mandate (Amendment?) that makes a deficit illegal, perhaps by making blanket cuts across the board, with NOTHING untouchable.

I share your disdain of likely Congressional actions. How do we implement across the board cuts? For entitlements, does everyone get 20% let, or do we cut 20% of the recipients from the roles? How we cut defense spending? Are we going to impose pay cuts on the serving military? Do we reduce the numbers of the military, reduce the amount of equipment? How we keep politics out of the decision? You know that the Senators and Congresscritters that represent districts with major Defense contractors will lobby for those constituents. I'm afraid that the servicemen and women won't have that powerful and a lobby and will lose benefits to keep the cash flowing to the major contractors in this scenario.

[nynco]

Import tarriffs should absolutely be the order of the day, along with massive federal government cuts, eliminating the Federal reserve and booting the UN out of this country. Thats a start anyway.

Agreed for the most part

[nynco]

Show me where income tax is written into the constitution? Clown

Did I say income tax in there? No you read what you want to read. Build your strawman and he will come...

[brutal]

Did I say income tax in there? No you read what you want to read. Build your strawman and he will come...

Bzzt. Wrong answer. The constitution does grant congress powers of taxation. The 16th amendment changed it to include taxation of income.

Clown

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[nynco]

Again you are putting words in my mouth. Building up that strawman

[TS12000]

Nyco, you put words into everyone's mind and then act like you didn't imply what you did. It like saying "the n word". We all know exactly wtf you're talking about without you having to actually say it like a man. The fact you're welcome around here at all with the constant bullshit you post is an act of generosity and patience, of which the mods may have but I do not. You are a liberal mouthpiece coward.

[PugnacAutMortem]

Dear Lord...7 hours later and nynco still is as batshit insane as he was before. It must be exhausting continuing to say that many things that are that far removed from reality.

[nynco]

So far Pug the only thing you have offered is personal attacks on me. Ironically attacks based on complaints which are exactly the same thing you do to me. Do you have anything relevant to add other than a personal insult? Please by all means go ahead.

[PugnacAutMortem]

So far Pug the only thing you have offered is personal attacks on me. Ironically attacks based on complaints which are exactly the same thing you do to me. Do you have anything relevant to add other than a personal insult. Please by all means go ahead.

I would love to...in fact I tried that before. You are incapable of being engaged on any sort of intellectual level. You live in bleeding heart liberal world. You're a lost soul, and its a waste of time to try and engage you at all.

[nynco]

Knee jerk predictable. You are all that you cry about in others.

[PugnacAutMortem]

Knee jerk predictable. You are all that you cry about in others.

You would be right if I were incapable of engaging in a discussion with someone with a differing viewpoint. With you, you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.

I don't even know why I'm doing this anymore. It's just round and round with you. Say whatever you want to say about me, but when everyone else on this site thinks you're a clown just like I do...maybe it's time to look in the mirror skippy.

[nynco]

You did it again

[cstone]

Well this has come to a predictable conclusion. [Neene2]

[TFOGGER]

Well this has come to a predictable conclusion. [Neene2]

More like [handbags]

[PugnacAutMortem]

More like [handbags]

Not quite [fags] though. Yeah I'm done lol.