http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/2363...-at-4-million/
It must be tough to be king.........
Printable View
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/2363...-at-4-million/
It must be tough to be king.........
Obama should be at Bush Crawford ranch instead. That seems to be ok in the past. What changed...
http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/up...bama-nero1.jpg
\Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
- 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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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?
If Obama is a worse president than Bush then why are corporate profits through the roof now?
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...h-impasse.htmlQuote:
WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, 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 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.
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.
If Bush is worse than Obama, why is the debt, deficit, and unemployment all way up since Bush has been gone?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
But $1.6 trillion will pay it off?Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Major cuts need to be made and the White House refuses to make that happen.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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...
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.
Objectively false statements. Which is a pattern from you nynco.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
And the claim that the no new tax pledge is unconstitutional is irrational looneytoon nonsense.
The medicare "cuts" are fake. Just as the double-counted medicare "savings" in Obamacare was fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Fake cuts and new taxes sufficient to cut Obama's deficit by a whole tenth.
That's the White House' joke.
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.
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 :Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
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 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.
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 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.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived ...
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:
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.
The power to tax may not be surrendered or suspended by grant or contract.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/66...e-constitution
I agree we need to do both.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
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...ehner-20110723Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
However, the White House countered with a proposal for $1.2 Trillion in new revenue.Quote:
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.
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....
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.
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.or...lliant_681.jpg
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.
Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
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.
Could you please...PLEASE show me where in the constitution that it MANDATES congressmen to RAISE taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Go ahead...I'll wait.
It is not "constitutionally mandated" that Congress increase the tax rate. That's utterly insane and incoherent.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Meanwhile, Democrats refuse to even adopt a budget. Which is a violation of the law that Congress is supposed to follow.
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.
Preach it brotherman![word]Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
So, if a congressman pledges that he will not raise taxes, he is violating the constitution. Utter nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
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.
Incoherence is all we've been getting from nynco.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Governmental deficit spending should be illegal.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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
Soc Securtity is not paid for by general taxes. It is not an entitlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho Villa