Do you agree with the Republicans or Obama on the deficit reduction deal?

Submitted by jimmyle on July 12, 2011 - 9:30am
4 trillion dollars cut for 10 years, absolutely no new taxes.
32% (19 votes)
4 trillion dollars cut of which 80% is spending cuts and 20% increase in revenue with taxing the rich and eliminating loopholes.
68% (40 votes)
Total votes: 59
Submitted by SD Realtor on July 16, 2011 - 5:44pm.

Brian you are missing the point entirely. While I despise both parties, you have unbridled love for one while at the same time consistently admitting it is the best of the worst. You like to consistently hammer one and then when the identical behavior is identified to your party of choice, you always have a rationalization.

It really is quite amazing. Regardless of who had the majority in 2006 the vote would have gone the EXACT same way so please don't try to double talk your way around the fact that it would not have.

As for the proposal that Obama made, I actually thought it actually had merit, IF what was reported was true. However what was reported to be offered varies wildly with what source you read it from. You of course blindly believe that whatever is reported by the press is bonafide. I do not. Nor do I believe what is reported by the conservative press is true either. Hopefully the truth is somewhere in the middle. I honestly have no clue what he put on the table. You of course tend to attack anyone who questions it in the name of having to defend a president that everyone attacks.

Needless to say that playing the card that social security checks may not be mailed out was one of the most outlandish statements he could make. Talk about playing the fear card.

**********

The repubs are screwed no matter how this plays out. They could not accept his proposal for the 4T because if they did he wins 2012 easily.

They cannot force a default because if they do he wins 2012 easily.

So the card they are trying to play is giving him the power to lift the ceiling while they can say they voted not to and put the blame on him each time he does so between now and 2012. It is remarkable what a f-cked up play that is.

*************

As usual you will not address the trajectory of the spending that has occurred under the administration. As I said I hate both parties but having one of those crooked parties in 100% control of all branches is a suicide pill. Just think if the dems still had the house do you honestly believe that any spending cuts at all would be proposed? I am sure you do.

************

As for the Bush tax cuts, they were another amazing example of fiscal irresponsibility. Bush spent like a drunken sailor and anyone with sense know the payback was gonna come in the form of tax hikes possibly higher then his reductions. I have no problem with tax hikes. I DO have a problem with over 40% of the country not paying a penny in taxes. Also as pointed out, the missed revenues from the tax cuts doesn't come close to the spending increases.

*************

Submitted by GH on July 16, 2011 - 8:38pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
I have no problem with tax hikes. I DO have a problem with over 40% of the country not paying a penny in taxes. Also as pointed out, the missed revenues from the tax cuts doesn't come close to the spending increases.*************

I am essentially VERY opposed to tax hikes. Having been in this position I can tell you that if you make little then start to make a lot, you will have NO protections against taxation such as home ownership most at high incomes take for granted. My OT was taxed at a rate of a percent or two under 60% of my gross income, making it very difficult to break out of years of low income living and get ahead, so IMO "the rich" are taxed up the babooki contrary to Obama gobbledygook on the subject.

That said, I would like to see a substantial decrease in "earned income" traded with a substantial increase in "unearned income", which I believe would provide opportunity for businesses to grow while taxing capital gains etc at a higher level.

In either event taxes up or down, there is a lot less taxable income and in the future there will be even less, so raise taxes by all means, but expenses must be massively cut to accommodate the current economic times, and ALL citizens must share the downturn, not just young working people.

Submitted by mike92104 on July 16, 2011 - 8:55pm.

Here's my take on the tax increase. Those clowns (dems and reps) aren't going to stop spending wildly until the money spigot is turned off. Once the spigot is off, they will start making cuts. At first it will be political BS like Social Security checks, or military pay until the public demands more responsible use of the money they have. Hopefully, at that point the government will finally have to start stripping away the disgusting bloated bureaucracies that are wasting so much of our money. In short, I wouldn't mind a bit of a tax increase if I thought it would actually do some good.

Also, if we want to discuss cutting costs, what about foreign aid? It really annoys me that a chunk of my taxes goes to some other country.

Submitted by KSMountain on July 17, 2011 - 12:20pm.

jstoesz wrote:
UCGal wrote:
What I don't get - why isn't either side saying "hey, lets go with the Simpson Bowles bi-partison plan!". It spreads the pain pretty evenly - everyone got hit.

You've got the dems saying the entitlements are untouchable. You've got the GOP saying anything on the revenue side is untouchable... It's unresolveable.

But there's this plan out there that can save face for everyone if they'd just vote on it. It makes cuts to social programs and entitlements. (Painful to the dems). It restructures taxes (painful to the GOP)... In other words - it's a compromise that no one loves - but makes some moves in the right direction.

Neither side will get what they want and solve the problem.

I would support that.


I would support that.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 17, 2011 - 12:46pm.

SD Realtor wrote:

It really is quite amazing. Regardless of who had the majority in 2006 the vote would have gone the EXACT same way so please don't try to double talk your way around the fact that it would not have.

How is that the exact same way?

In 2006 the debt limit increase passed without a hickup. Democratic senators voiced disapproval of Bush Policies, but nobody held the country hostage.

People in power need to be mindful of the proportional consequences of their actions.

Today the debt ceiling increase would pass in the Senate just the same.

The Republican House is the problem. They are holding the country hostage.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 17, 2011 - 1:33pm.

I love responses that are not responses at all. Good job addressing no points. It just shows your blind partisanship. The point is that they all voted as a party the same way. Don't give me this crap that it was a show of symbolism because had they had a majority they would have done the same damn thing and only allowed a debt increase under some conditions that would have been beneficial for them.

At least make a half hearted attempt at being honest.

Submitted by paramount on July 17, 2011 - 1:35pm.

I think it's all an act. Both Obama and the republicans are fully prepared to attack the middle class by using this so-called debt crisis to gut medicare and social security and whatever else.
But Obama has to appear that he really fought to keep whatever program the middle class depends on.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 17, 2011 - 1:36pm.

Democrats had the majority in Congress under many Republican presidents. They have never held the country hostage and brought the country to the brink like Republicans are doing with the debt limit today.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 17, 2011 - 1:43pm.

paramount wrote:
I think it's all an act. Both Obama and the republicans are fully prepared to attack the middle class by using this so-called debt crisis to gut medicare and social security and whatever else.
But Obama has to appear that he really fought to keep whatever program the middle class depends on.

How is that an act?

Under Republican plans, new legislation will cut programs.

Under Democrats, the programs are preserved under law.

But if you believe what you believe, and you're middle-class, what side of the two do you want to be on?

Submitted by KSMountain on July 17, 2011 - 2:51pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Democrats had the majority in Congress under many Republican presidents. They have never held the country hostage and brought the country to the brink like Republicans are doing with the debt limit today.

But Brian, understand they have constituents who support what they're doing. It's not like 200 or so inexplicably obstinate dudes are doing this on their own for giggles.

Perhaps the objections are fiercer this time because the debt went from $9T to $12.5T just, what, a year and a half ago and now they've already spent that and are coming back for more. Enough!

Would you support an individual running their finances in this way? I do not.

Submitted by KSMountain on July 17, 2011 - 2:56pm.

Bringing some data, and some perspective,

I find the bottom chart telling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt...

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 17, 2011 - 3:13pm.

Oh Brian please... holding the country hostage. Really? Are they really doing that? Get a clue please... There is no way the dems don't come out ahead in this debt deal. The timing is perfect for them and either way they win. As stupid as the republicans are they are going to hold anything up.

It would be damn good for this country to actually see what life is like when you ACTUALLY HAVE A LIMIT on what you spend.

The point is that both parties suck and they rely on blithering blind yahoos to support what they do unconditionally.

Submitted by mike92104 on July 17, 2011 - 4:07pm.

Holding the country hostage? You mean like attaching a bunch of pork to supplemental military spending bills? Is that a good example of holding the country hostage? I wish you would grow up and get an opinion of your own Brian. One other than the one the Dems have told you have.

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 17, 2011 - 6:11pm.

The very sad truth of the matter is that, despite the immense responsibility with which they are entrusted, most members of Congress don't have a clue about what is happening with the economy of the United States. The fiscal IQ of this governing body is shockingly low, but what is far worse is their lack of curiosity about the present crisis and their unwillingness to acquire the knowledge necessary to address it effectively.

There was a clearly marked difference in the overall tone of the Republican leaders of the House and Senate this week, and many of the GOP members. This happened to coincide with the release of the Debt Limit Analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center, authored in part by Jay Powell, a former undersecretary of the Treasury for President George H.W. Bush. Reading the report apparently represented a "come to Jesus" moment for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, scaring the hell out of them enough that they not only immediately dropped the "no tax hikes, no ceiling hikes" line, but corralled several of their fellow Republicans into an emergency presentation by Mr. Powell.

As several of my fellow Piggs have mentioned in this thread, the GOP has, by all appearances, been faithfully following the marching orders given them by the newer House and Senate members who follow a Tea Party agenda. To save time, space, and what's left of my sanity, I will refrain from delving into their reasons for doing so. What is more important is that no one seems to be concerned that our leaders no longer feel the need to consult with experts, examine situations from every angle, and formulate solutions that are based on solid theory and evidence. Instead, we refer to our subject matter experts as "intellectual snobs", and make constant references to the need for "common sense" in policymaking and problem-solving.

We have political leaders adopting recalcitrant attitudes in which they vow not to change their position, no matter what, who claim to be willing to work in a bipartisan manner. Explain to me again how that's done? But what's far worse is that they are basing these positions not only on their desire to win the next election, but on extremely limited, and often, critically-flawed information.

People - both political leaders and voters - are no longer concerned with gathering information in an effort to formulate a position on an issue, but only on gathering information that will support their preconceived positions. Thanks to the wonderful world of the internet, it has become so incredibly easy to do that. I can't tell you the number of times I've tried to check the source of "facts" quoted by popular politicians, and all I've come up with is a rumor that has traveled from blog to twitter post to radio show transcript to blog, gaining tacit veracity along the way.

Our nation is at a critical crossroads, and we have a Congress chock-full of intellectually-deficient members. What's worse is that we have a country full of voters ready to vote even more of these loud obnoxious stubborn morons into office (largely because of their loud obnoxious stubborn moronic characteristics). I commend Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell for attempting to educate their fellow Republicans (once they were, themselves, educated about the big picture), but it will take more than that for them to undo the damage they've done in the last couple months.

And please do not interpret my post as an endorsement of the Democrats. IT IS NOT. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing about this Congress that is bipartisan is their overall lack of an intellectual foundation.

Please, please, PLEASE, can we bring the smart people back? I don't expect my leaders to know everything. I DO expect them to (1) recognize and acknowledge what they DON'T know, and (2) make a concerted effort to find people who DO know, and take the time to listen to them BEFORE taking a position.

Submitted by afx114 on July 17, 2011 - 11:51pm.

KSMountain wrote:
Bringing some data, and some perspective,

I find the bottom chart telling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Some additional perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

Submitted by CA renter on July 18, 2011 - 2:59am.

paramount wrote:
I think it's all an act. Both Obama and the republicans are fully prepared to attack the middle class by using this so-called debt crisis to gut medicare and social security and whatever else.
But Obama has to appear that he really fought to keep whatever program the middle class depends on.

Funny how you defend Social Security and Medicare, and understand how they affect the middle class; but you don't defend pensions and other benefits for union workers that were earned in just the same way (and the vast majority of those union workers do not get SS benefits). There is no difference between the two.

Submitted by Arraya on July 18, 2011 - 6:22am.

eavesdropper wrote:

Please, please, PLEASE, can we bring the smart people back? I don't expect my leaders to know everything. I DO expect them to (1) recognize and acknowledge what they DON'T know, and (2) make a concerted effort to find people who DO know, and take the time to listen to them BEFORE taking a position.

I don't think it is lack of "smart people", it's that our environment is changing and old patterns of behavior, methods of problem solving, etc - that once used to look relatively competent, are looking worse and worse. Social institutions get ossified and and finally irrelevant over time.

I would expect more dramatic political theater in our future.

When the Mayan civilization was deteriorating and the population was getting restless. They would hold more sacrifices or build more pyramids and lots of ceremonies. Because, these things used to bring good fortune.

We are building more pyramids and holding ceremonies, I expect the sacrifices to come in a few years.

Historian, Arnold Toynbee spent his life studying societal decay and found some similar traits amongst every single one.

"Toynbee argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside. Rather, ironically, societies that develop great expertise in problem solving become incapable of solving new problems by overdeveloping their structures for solving old ones."

Jared Diamond, who recently wrote "Collapse, how societies choose to succeed or fail" came to similar conclusions

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 18, 2011 - 10:59am.

Arraya wrote:
I don't think it is lack of "smart people", it's that our environment is changing and old patterns of behavior, methods of problem solving, etc - that once used to look relatively competent, are looking worse and worse. Social institutions get ossified and and finally irrelevant over time.

I would expect more dramatic political theater in our future.

When the Mayan civilization was deteriorating and the population was getting restless. They would hold more sacrifices or build more pyramids and lots of ceremonies. Because, these things used to bring good fortune.

We are building more pyramids and holding ceremonies, I expect the sacrifices to come in a few years.

Historian, Arnold Toynbee spent his life studying societal decay and found some similar traits amongst every single one.

"Toynbee argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside. Rather, ironically, societies that develop great expertise in problem solving become incapable of solving new problems by overdeveloping their structures for solving old ones."

Jared Diamond, who recently wrote "Collapse, how societies choose to succeed or fail" came to similar conclusions

At the risk of coming off as politically incorrect AND as an intellectual snob, I do think that there's a shortage. Like any valuable resource, truly intelligent, creative, educated people are in short supply everywhere. Always have been, always will be. The difference is that when we started the last decade, much of the population, including our esteemed leaders, would admit that they didn't know everything about economics, biology, public health, genetics, finance, and other extremely complex fields of study. A decade later, these same people are admitting to no such shortcoming and, when challenged, are resorting to discounting the value of intelligence and education.

Someone like Sarah Palin, who has proven in interview after interview how woefully unprepared she is to handle the intellectual demands of the Presidency, would have been laughed off the national stage in the late 1990s. But 10 years later, we have a disturbingly high percentage of voters who aren't even capable of recognizing that a President and members of Congress should possess an advanced level of mental competence on a wide breadth of subject matter.

Listening to autocratic representatives and senators repeatedly making sweeping pronouncements on the debt ceiling and the fiscal crisis has been one of the more frightening experiences of my life. These people not only are incapable of looking at the big picture, they aren't AWARE that there IS a big picture. Many of them treat the deficit as though it was a single line item on their daily "to-do" list, along with signing the commendation acknowledging their constituents' 50th wedding anniversary, and making time to meet with the Cub Scout troop from back home who is visiting D.C. for the first time. The fact that the deficit problem is inextricably tied in with the debt ceiling issue, and a hundred others, is beyond their comprehension.

The bailout of the automakers is a prime example. I was the last person on earth who wanted tax dollars going to companies operated with such incompetence, but I had to consider the "big picture": namely, how an economy already awash in red ink, mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment, was going to be able to cope with the overnight layoffs (with concomitant loss of health insurance, pensions, and retirement savings) of over one-million auto company and support industry employees. There are still people (everyday citizens, pundits, and politicians) complaining bitterly about "Obama's socialist takeover" of the industry, but not one of them has ever been able to answer that question. What's worse is that neither the press, or the political opponents, demand an answer from them.

However, I agree with what you're saying about our methodology in handling critical issues, Arraya. I didn't get into it in my post but I believe that there's no question that we are trying to solve our current financial crisis by addressing issues based on a 100-year-old model. We continue to bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs when, for all intents and purposes, they've been gone since the early 70s. Most people, including our lawmakers, appear to be unaware that ALL of our jobs are going overseas. Based on the current trend, the vast majority of the jobs in the coming decade will be government-compensated positions related to taking care of the existing population (health care, farming, law enforcement, etc.). Since loss of jobs results in loss of tax revenue, the people holding these positions will be seriously underpaid and overworked.

In the late 60s, our nation was in an enviable position. We had just landed on the moon, and were generally acknowledged as the world leader in science and technology (whether true or not). At that point, we should have been making a concerted effort to change our economic model to one based on technology, not solely on industry and manufacturing. Our public school system was turning out graduates who were actually able to read, write, and perform basic arithmetic functions, and we had more college graduates and enrolled students than at any other time in our history.

However, we not only didn't make the change, but we've spent the last forty years wasting trillions of dollars "fixing" problems in economic model that doesn't exist anymore, and pissing away the economic and intellectual capital amassed by the generations who came before us. And instead of using our improved education and economic status to turn our children into the scientists and engineers and medical researchers of the future, we chose to reduce the academic demands on students in our nation's elementary and secondary schools.

The saying "Think outside of the box" has been bandied about nonstop over the past decade by a population that hasn't the remotest idea of what it actually means, and that continues, instead, trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

Submitted by Coronita on July 18, 2011 - 12:24pm.

eavesdropper wrote:
Arraya wrote:
I don't think it is lack of "smart people", it's that our environment is changing and old patterns of behavior, methods of problem solving, etc - that once used to look relatively competent, are looking worse and worse. Social institutions get ossified and and finally irrelevant over time.

I would expect more dramatic political theater in our future.

When the Mayan civilization was deteriorating and the population was getting restless. They would hold more sacrifices or build more pyramids and lots of ceremonies. Because, these things used to bring good fortune.

We are building more pyramids and holding ceremonies, I expect the sacrifices to come in a few years.

Historian, Arnold Toynbee spent his life studying societal decay and found some similar traits amongst every single one.

"Toynbee argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside. Rather, ironically, societies that develop great expertise in problem solving become incapable of solving new problems by overdeveloping their structures for solving old ones."

Jared Diamond, who recently wrote "Collapse, how societies choose to succeed or fail" came to similar conclusions

At the risk of coming off as politically incorrect AND as an intellectual snob, I do think that there's a shortage. Like any valuable resource, truly intelligent, creative, educated people are in short supply everywhere. Always have been, always will be. The difference is that when we started the last decade, much of the population, including our esteemed leaders, would admit that they didn't know everything about economics, biology, public health, genetics, finance, and other extremely complex fields of study. A decade later, these same people are admitting to no such shortcoming and, when challenged, are resorting to discounting the value of intelligence and education.

Someone like Sarah Palin, who has proven in interview after interview how woefully unprepared she is to handle the intellectual demands of the Presidency, would have been laughed off the national stage in the late 1990s. But 10 years later, we have a disturbingly high percentage of voters who aren't even capable of recognizing that a President and members of Congress should possess an advanced level of mental competence on a wide breadth of subject matter.

Listening to autocratic representatives and senators repeatedly making sweeping pronouncements on the debt ceiling and the fiscal crisis has been one of the more frightening experiences of my life. These people not only are incapable of looking at the big picture, they aren't AWARE that there IS a big picture. Many of them treat the deficit as though it was a single line item on their daily "to-do" list, along with signing the commendation acknowledging their constituents' 50th wedding anniversary, and making time to meet with the Cub Scout troop from back home who is visiting D.C. for the first time. The fact that the deficit problem is inextricably tied in with the debt ceiling issue, and a hundred others, is beyond their comprehension.

The bailout of the automakers is a prime example. I was the last person on earth who wanted tax dollars going to companies operated with such incompetence, but I had to consider the "big picture": namely, how an economy already awash in red ink, mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment, was going to be able to cope with the overnight layoffs (with concomitant loss of health insurance, pensions, and retirement savings) of over one-million auto company and support industry employees. There are still people (everyday citizens, pundits, and politicians) complaining bitterly about "Obama's socialist takeover" of the industry, but not one of them has ever been able to answer that question. What's worse is that neither the press, or the political opponents, demand an answer from them.

However, I agree with what you're saying about our methodology in handling critical issues, Arraya. I didn't get into it in my post but I believe that there's no question that we are trying to solve our current financial crisis by addressing issues based on a 100-year-old model. We continue to bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs when, for all intents and purposes, they've been gone since the early 70s. Most people, including our lawmakers, appear to be unaware that ALL of our jobs are going overseas. Based on the current trend, the vast majority of the jobs in the coming decade will be government-compensated positions related to taking care of the existing population (health care, farming, law enforcement, etc.). Since loss of jobs results in loss of tax revenue, the people holding these positions will be seriously underpaid and overworked.

In the late 60s, our nation was in an enviable position. We had just landed on the moon, and were generally acknowledged as the world leader in science and technology (whether true or not). At that point, we should have been making a concerted effort to change our economic model to one based on technology, not solely on industry and manufacturing. Our public school system was turning out graduates who were actually able to read, write, and perform basic arithmetic functions, and we had more college graduates and enrolled students than at any other time in our history.

However, we not only didn't make the change, but we've spent the last forty years wasting trillions of dollars "fixing" problems in economic model that doesn't exist anymore, and pissing away the economic and intellectual capital amassed by the generations who came before us. And instead of using our improved education and economic status to turn our children into the scientists and engineers and medical researchers of the future, we chose to reduce the academic demands on students in our nation's elementary and secondary schools.

The saying "Think outside of the box" has been bandied about nonstop over the past decade by a population that hasn't the remotest idea of what it actually means, and that continues, instead, trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

Eaves,
You could have just used two words to summarize what you said.

Sarah palin

Submitted by ucodegen on July 18, 2011 - 12:45pm.

briansd1 wrote:
poorgradstudent wrote:
We have a small spending problem (mostly due to defense and SS spending) and a large revenue problem thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

I believe that you are correct.

We should remember that by the end of the Clinton presidency, surpluses were predicted into the future.


You forget. The predicted Clinton surpluses were based upon straight line prediction of continued stock price increases and the resulting increases in taxes due to capital gains and corporate profits.

Much like how California's budget was wrecked when they assumed that they could 'straight-line' the property and real estate sales tax revenue - until it all collapsed.

What was forgotten on both sides was that things always return to norm. If you get a Windfall - bank it, don't assume it will always be there. Don't adjust your spending as if it would always be there.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 18, 2011 - 12:55pm.

CA renter wrote:
paramount wrote:
I think it's all an act. Both Obama and the republicans are fully prepared to attack the middle class by using this so-called debt crisis to gut medicare and social security and whatever else.
But Obama has to appear that he really fought to keep whatever program the middle class depends on.

Funny how you defend Social Security and Medicare, and understand how they affect the middle class; but you don't defend pensions and other benefits for union workers that were earned in just the same way (and the vast majority of those union workers do not get SS benefits). There is no difference between the two.


Except for one thing.. lets take the CTU (California Teachers Union) - primarily Los Angeles area because contracts did vary by locale.
On retirement - it was 80% of medical - covered (Blue Shield was the carrier last time I saw).
Retirement pay - varied between 60% to 80% of final pay.

Social security, a person making over 100K a year, SS will pay them about 25K/year - for less than 25% of final pay.
Medicare doesn't even cover close to what the CTU's medical coverage will cover.

Though many Union workers - like CTU, do not get Social Security, they get a near equivalent. Most of the Union workers who do not get SS are State/Federal Union workers. If you a Union worker, working at a plant like GM, you do get SS and you get a pension at the same time.

Submitted by UCGal on July 18, 2011 - 3:49pm.

Looks like there's a new plan on the table. Sure to piss off everyone - proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn.

http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9-...

Submitted by CA renter on July 18, 2011 - 3:55pm.

ucodegen wrote:
CA renter wrote:
paramount wrote:
I think it's all an act. Both Obama and the republicans are fully prepared to attack the middle class by using this so-called debt crisis to gut medicare and social security and whatever else.
But Obama has to appear that he really fought to keep whatever program the middle class depends on.

Funny how you defend Social Security and Medicare, and understand how they affect the middle class; but you don't defend pensions and other benefits for union workers that were earned in just the same way (and the vast majority of those union workers do not get SS benefits). There is no difference between the two.


Except for one thing.. lets take the CTU (California Teachers Union) - primarily Los Angeles area because contracts did vary by locale.
On retirement - it was 80% of medical - covered (Blue Shield was the carrier last time I saw).
Retirement pay - varied between 60% to 80% of final pay.

Social security, a person making over 100K a year, SS will pay them about 25K/year - for less than 25% of final pay.
Medicare doesn't even cover close to what the CTU's medical coverage will cover.

Though many Union workers - like CTU, do not get Social Security, they get a near equivalent. Most of the Union workers who do not get SS are State/Federal Union workers. If you a Union worker, working at a plant like GM, you do get SS and you get a pension at the same time.

L.A. Unified eliminated retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. Their pensions paid about 60% of final pay -- I've not heard of anyone getting 80% of their final pay, but will look into it further. Overall, not much different than SS benefits.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 18, 2011 - 7:16pm.

CA renter wrote:
L.A. Unified eliminated retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. Their pensions paid about 60% of final pay -- I've not heard of anyone getting 80% of their final pay, but will look into it further. Overall, not much different than SS benefits.

The reference I am using is a parent who is retired after teaching in LAUSD. Of course they hired on a while back (quite a while). I do know that after mid 90's (actually more recently than that, late 90's) pensions, retirement and health benefits were changed with some attempts at 'retroactive' changes affecting those who were employed when benefits were better.

Actually, it is quite a bit different than Soc Sec. 60% vs 25% of salary is not the same or even close. If you are contributing to SS, you should be getting mail from the SS administration showing what your retirement benefits would be at particular retirement ages.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 18, 2011 - 7:19pm.

UCGal wrote:
Looks like there's a new plan on the table. Sure to piss off everyone - proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn.

http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9-trillion-deficit-cut-measure-192145582.html


I have no problem with tax increases IFF(if-and-only-if) congress can be trusted to reign in and hold spending. So far, they have not demonstrated that ability. They see money, they got to spend it...

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 18, 2011 - 7:42pm.

flu wrote:

Eaves,
You could have just used two words to summarize what you said.

Sarah palin

You know, flu, that very thought occurred to me just as I hit the "Save" button.

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 18, 2011 - 9:03pm.

ucodegen wrote:

You forget. The predicted Clinton surpluses were based upon straight line prediction of continued stock price increases and the resulting increases in taxes due to capital gains and corporate profits.

Much like how California's budget was wrecked when they assumed that they could 'straight-line' the property and real estate sales tax revenue - until it all collapsed.

What was forgotten on both sides was that things always return to norm. If you get a Windfall - bank it, don't assume it will always be there. Don't adjust your spending as if it would always be there.

Doesn't much matter how the surplus came about. It's part and parcel of political lore now. Despite the fact that it was "accidentally" created, there are two completely different stories to the contrary. Which one you actually hear is dependent upon the political persuasion of the individual telling it. Neither is the truth.

That aside, I agree with you, ucodegen. Quite honestly, every congressperson since 1990 has been aware of the impending retirement of the first of the baby boomers, and the looming social security/medicare tsunami - in fact, well before then. The fact that they did nothing to address it is inexcusable, frustrating, but not entirely unexpected. However, squandering the existing surplus, and then running up a multi-trillion dollar debt demonstrates a level of incompetence that is beyond stratospheric.

Quite honestly, every government official responsible for approving the Medicare Drug Plan and the waging of two (!) wars, commitments that carry astronomical price tags, without finding appropriate sources of funding to pay for them should be kicked out of Congress and stripped of their pensions and any other benefits. This, in itself, is unbelievable. But to make deep long-term cuts in taxes during the same period??

Seriously, how can ANYONE possibly defend these actions?! There is absolutely no way that these individuals should be entrusted with the treasury and the security of the United States. And in case anyone is wondering, this includes the incompetent Republicans who honestly DID resemble drunken sailors, and the chickenshit Dems, who, aside from a few brave souls, lacked the balls to say "no" to them.

I haven't stopped muttering "WTF??!!" since the mid-aughts.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 18, 2011 - 11:59pm.

ucodegen wrote:

You forget. The predicted Clinton surpluses were based upon straight line prediction of continued stock price increases and the resulting increases in taxes due to capital gains and corporate profits.

I didn't forget. Bush used those same projections for his tax cuts.

If we had maintained the Clinton rates, we would have had 10 years worth of additional revenue and our debt problem wouldn't as daunting today.

In fact, if we had paid for the wars, we would be in better financial shape today.

Submitted by briansd1 on July 19, 2011 - 12:00am.

eavesdropper, glad to see you post again. I enjoyed reading your posts.

Submitted by zk on July 19, 2011 - 12:16am.

briansd1 wrote:
eavesdropper, glad to see you post again. I enjoyed reading your posts.

I agree with you, Brian. Each of her posts is like a little masterpiece.

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 19, 2011 - 12:27am.

UCGal wrote:
Looks like there's a new plan on the table. Sure to piss off everyone - proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn.

http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9-trillion-deficit-cut-measure-192145582.html

UCGal, trust me: I'm no Tom Coburn groupie. But these days, any member of congress who will come up with plans that appear to be based on actual study of the issues and that make a reasonable attempt to "share the pain" earns a modicum amount of respect from me. It's a big plan, and I need much more time to look it over, but he ladles out pretty big helpings of steaming hot shit to everyone at the table. Not only that, many of the cuts he mentions take a significantly long time to take effect (like 2025). Not like Paul Ryan's "heroic" plan to privatize Medicare. Not only has that failed miserably in the case of the Medicare (Dis)Advantage Plans, but -seriously - what are the chances that I'm going to be able to purchase anything but completely worthless health insurance plans with my little Ryan-voucher when I'm 65? And that's only 11 years away. Not exactly enough time for me to lay aside another couple million in an HSA to cover serious or catastrophic illness expenses.

I'm tired of our elected officials throwing testosterone-fueled temper tantrums (and I include the female congressional members in that) in public, loudly declaring what they will not vote for, or signing increasingly bizarre pledges giving their allegiance to some individual or group for whom I did not vote. I'm tired of the verbal duels (which, interestingly enough, never take place face-to-face), and the machismo-soaked stand-offs. Frankly, that's not why I'm paying these jerk-offs. I'm pretty sure that most other voters will agree with me when I say that what I DO pay these asshats for is to WORK. They need to get into a room with the guys from the "other side" - a room, NOT a golf course - and start pounding out ways of handling this critical situation that involves actual compromise. I'll be happy tp donate a dictionary if that is too big a word for members of Congress to understand.

Like I said, I'm not a charter member of the Coburn Fan Club (and my niece in OK - a constituent - hates him), but he at least appears to be earning his taxpayer-funded salary, and that will always get a nod from me. A few weeks ago, he and Joe Lieberman released a Medicare overhaul plan, and I was favorably impressed with a lot of the stuff in it. It may not represent the perfect solution, but there are suggested measures that are not included simply to gain votes or curry favor from the insurance companies or the AMA or AARP. Once again, they distribute the pain across the board, and some of suggestions might actually work. If it will get a dialogue going, I'll give the guy his props.

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 19, 2011 - 12:34am.

briansd1 wrote:
eavesdropper, glad to see you post again. I enjoyed reading your posts.

A pleasure to be back, brian. Love the Piggs - my #1 source of civilized discourse, available 24 hours a day.

Submitted by jstoesz on July 19, 2011 - 12:39am.

Every argument here on both sides of the aisle speaks to the need of a limited federal government. If we had a federal government which stuck to its constitutional bounds as laid out plainly, we would not be in this mess. But then of course we would not have a federal government which could evolve with the times (tongue in cheek).

If you want socialism move to a socialist state...if you want laissez faire capitalism and its cruelty move to a libertarian state...if they would exist.

All this discussion shows how important a united states of america is!

One where the majority of taxes, regulation, and commerce is decided by more local municipalities.

Now if you fear competition and desire control, you will probably disagree with me.

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 19, 2011 - 12:40am.

zk wrote:
briansd1 wrote:
eavesdropper, glad to see you post again. I enjoyed reading your posts.

I agree with you, Brian. Each of her posts is like a little masterpiece.

zk, that is SO sweet! I mean it: that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week. Except my husband. And he's obligated to say nice things to me.

Submitted by CA renter on July 19, 2011 - 1:56am.

eavesdropper wrote:

That aside, I agree with you, ucodegen. Quite honestly, every congressperson since 1990 has been aware of the impending retirement of the first of the baby boomers, and the looming social security/medicare tsunami - in fact, well before then. The fact that they did nothing to address it is inexcusable, frustrating, but not entirely unexpected. However, squandering the existing surplus, and then running up a multi-trillion dollar debt demonstrates a level of incompetence that is beyond stratospheric.

Quite honestly, every government official responsible for approving the Medicare Drug Plan and the waging of two (!) wars, commitments that carry astronomical price tags, without finding appropriate sources of funding to pay for them should be kicked out of Congress and stripped of their pensions and any other benefits. This, in itself, is unbelievable. But to make deep long-term cuts in taxes during the same period??

Seriously, how can ANYONE possibly defend these actions?! There is absolutely no way that these individuals should be entrusted with the treasury and the security of the United States. And in case anyone is wondering, this includes the incompetent Republicans who honestly DID resemble drunken sailors, and the chickenshit Dems, who, aside from a few brave souls, lacked the balls to say "no" to them.

I haven't stopped muttering "WTF??!!" since the mid-aughts.

There it is, in a nutshell. Well done, eavesdropper.

Again, when are you running for office? ;)

Submitted by CA renter on July 19, 2011 - 2:53am.

ucodegen wrote:
CA renter wrote:
L.A. Unified eliminated retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. Their pensions paid about 60% of final pay -- I've not heard of anyone getting 80% of their final pay, but will look into it further. Overall, not much different than SS benefits.

The reference I am using is a parent who is retired after teaching in LAUSD. Of course they hired on a while back (quite a while). I do know that after mid 90's (actually more recently than that, late 90's) pensions, retirement and health benefits were changed with some attempts at 'retroactive' changes affecting those who were employed when benefits were better.

Actually, it is quite a bit different than Soc Sec. 60% vs 25% of salary is not the same or even close. If you are contributing to SS, you should be getting mail from the SS administration showing what your retirement benefits would be at particular retirement ages.

No doubt, benefits were very good many years ago. My dad worked for LACCD, and they had 100% medical coverage while employed, retiree healthcare for life, and a comfortable pension. Those days are long gone, I'm afraid.

The changes to LAUSD's benefits were part of the changes that swept through local governments all across the state (maybe other states as well, but I'm not familiar with them). I know that it began in 1995-1996 because I was working for LAUSD at the time, and my husband was working in municipal government in a totally different capacity, and in a totally different county, and they went through the same thing at the same time (as did many of our friends who work in various capacities in govt throughout the state).

Quite frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a municipal employer who still offers retiree healthcare benefits. This is one of the things that gets glossed over by those who complain about government workers, and who claim that they've never given anything up. The loss of retiree healthcare was a very big deal.

Yes, you are correct about SS not paying as much as a teacher's pension, but according to the calculator:

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet....

...I entered the approximate wages for a teacher working over the past 30 years, and it pays about 34% of their final wages.

You also have to account for the fact that many private employers during that time were contributing to their employees' retirement/401K plans, whereas the public employers don't (outside of pensions, which is similar to the private employers contributing toward payroll/SS taxes).

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 19, 2011 - 2:25am.

jstoesz wrote:
Every argument here on both sides of the aisle speaks to the need of a limited federal government. If we had a federal government which stuck to its constitutional bounds as laid out plainly, we would not be in this mess. But then of course we would not have a federal government which could evolve with the times (tongue in cheek).

Ah, we are back to the Constitution, and Obama's Tourette's-like compulsion to continue violating it in any way he can.

You might find the opinion of this writer illuminating; by all accounts, he knew a little somethin'-somethin' about the Constitution (but I couldn't swear to it. It might just be another baseless rumor spread by godless liberals):

“Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, & deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. they ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well: I belonged to it, and labored with it. it deserved well of it’s country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present: and 40 years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading: and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions ... but I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind ... we might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

jstoesz wrote:
If you want socialism move to a socialist state...if you want laissez faire capitalism and its cruelty move to a libertarian state...if they would exist.

I'm confused here. Are you talking about actual "states", as in California, Michigan, Arizona, etc.? In which case, you will have to enlighten me on which ones are socialist, capitalist, etc.

Or are you speaking of moving to other countries that are socialist or capitalist? In which case, you will probably still have to inform me, as established governments typically operate under the tenets of several systems. There are reasons for that - the fact that it just works better that way is paramount among them. But, just for shits and grins, I'll play along.

I don't want to move to a "socialist state" or a "socialist country". And I don't have a problem with capitalism or a free-enterprise system, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a true free-enterprise system in the U.S. these days. A relatively few megacorporations own and run everything these days. You might think that anyone is free to start a little business, and through their own hard work (and nothing else, especially from the big, bad government), can earn a spot between Hewlett-Packard and General Mills on the Fortune 500 list within a few years. But as soon as your plucky little company-that-could was large enough to be identified as a mosquito on the nose of a big company, they'd take steps to buy you out at a seriously undervalued amount (if you were lucky), or just find a way to make you and your company disappear (if you weren't lucky). They seem to find #2 a more entertaining and efficient solution, so that's probably the way it would go.

So I can't vouch for whether the government has forced the US into socialism, but I can guarantee that they're making capitalism hazardous to your health (or, at the least, your bank account).

jstoesz wrote:
All this discussion shows how important a united states of america is!

One where the majority of taxes, regulation, and commerce is decided by more local municipalities.

There's a good reason that the founding fathers created "one nation, indivisible..." instead of "the United Countries of America. I ask you - in all seriousness - do you honestly believe that we would have survived for over 200 years as a nation, much less achieved the level of world power if we had allowed the states to act as completely independent entities?

Look, there's no question that the federal government has made some serious blunders over the years, and that they have, at times, overstepped their bounds of power. However, consider this:

Who do the people, municipalities, and the states turn to......
In times of war?
In public health emergencies (i.e., typhoid epidemics, or incidences of fast-moving unknown communicable diseases?
In natural disasters, like floods or hurricanes?
When major damage has occurred to infrastructure?
And the list goes on and on. There are some things that are too large in scope for a smaller entity (such as a state) to handle on their own, or things that occur in quick succession. If each state had to maintain a separate military; separate facilities to handle multistate crimes or events; separate public health facilities, the expense would be prohibitive, especially in states that are less populated.

At this point in time, the cost of health care has reached prohibitive levels for the individual states. Only an entity as large as the federal government is in a position to handle it. And it can't be turned over to private insurers because they have made it crystal clear that they are interested only in "insuring" very young, extremely healthy people. And that really wouldn't help much as an answer to our health care crisis, would it. At the same time, another reason for the crisis is because of the high level of expectations from the public where their health care is concerned. For health care to remain a reality for the anybody outside of the very rich in America, those expectations are going to have to be lowered significantly.

Everyone will have to make concessions. It's referred to as compromise.

But back to the original statement: if the states had been allowed to act as completely independent entities, we'd have a mess of little poverty-ridden nonproductive states surrounding the intermittent well-developed highly populated ones. Or we'd have three or four really, really big states. If we still had a nation at all.

jstoesz wrote:
Every argument here on both sides of the aisle speaks to the need of a limited federal government....Now if you fear competition and desire control, you will probably disagree with me.

We DO have a limited federal government. Their power has been curtailed to an unprecedented level, and many of the agencies don't exert the power that they have (the SEC's stellar performance in the Enron, Tyco, and Madoff cases are the ones that come to mind immediately).

This is not accidental. Look at the amount of pressure that has been brought to bear against Elizabeth Warren in her efforts to bring about some relatively innocuous changes in the ways banks sell consumer loans and credit cards. The Republicans have devoted an enormous amount of time and resources to preventing the establishment of a Consumer Credit Agency, and finally resorted to their time-honored AND proven method of liberally applied smear tactics.

I don't fear competition. In fact, I'd welcome some sign that it is still alive and well in the United States. But that's difficult to do with my cable bill staring at me from the top of my desk.

Submitted by eavesdropper on July 19, 2011 - 2:34am.

CA renter wrote:
eavesdropper wrote:
Seriously, how can ANYONE possibly defend these actions?! There is absolutely no way that these individuals should be entrusted with the treasury and the security of the United States. And in case anyone is wondering, this includes the incompetent Republicans who honestly DID resemble drunken sailors, and the chickenshit Dems, who, aside from a few brave souls, lacked the balls to say "no" to them.

I haven't stopped muttering "WTF??!!" since the mid-aughts.

There it is, in a nutshell. Well done, eavesdropper.

Again, when are you running for office? ;)

When I get my friggin' hardwood floors (refer to PIGGS R' US thread).

Seriously, CAR, I have to run for governor first, so that I can quit two years into my four-year term to prove that I'm a selfless and dedicated public servant. THEN I can run for an office that you can vote for.

But if I have to learn to golf, all bets are off.....

Submitted by briansd1 on July 24, 2011 - 2:46pm.

Obama could unilaterally raise the debt limit on his own. As a last resort, he should do so and let the Republicans take him to court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/pol...

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 24, 2011 - 6:35pm.

Actually Brian the repubs have already offered him a plan that lets him do that so why doesnt he take that plan. Also they sent a plan to the senate as well but obama already said he would veto that plan as well. Seems like someone else is "holding the country hostage" by rejecting plans that don't get past the election year. Similarly him and Boner were on the cusp of an agreement but he slipped another 400 billion in "revenues" on Friday at the last minute. I like how they call tax hikes "revenues" it sounds so much friendlier...

Talk about playing politics. Both parties suck here... let's not exonerate anyone... take the rose colored spectacles off just for a minute.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 24, 2011 - 6:43pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
Actually Brian the repubs have already offered him a plan that lets him do that so why doesnt he take that plan. Also they sent a plan to the senate as well but obama already said he would veto that plan as well. Seems like someone else is "holding the country hostage" by rejecting plans that don't get past the election year. Similarly him and Boner were on the cusp of an agreement but he slipped another 400 billion in "revenues" on Friday at the last minute. I like how they call tax hikes "revenues" it sounds so much friendlier...

Talk about playing politics. Both parties suck here... let's not exonerate anyone... take the rose colored spectacles off just for a minute.

SDR: Good post. You're right, both parties suck on this and both are using this to score political points (in advance of the 2012 elections) and for political theater.

I'd also ask to see Obama's "plan". We hear repeatedly about the Obama plan, but haven't seen it. Nor have we seen any attempt at balancing the fed budget during his 2.5 year stint as prez.

There is enough bullshit flying about to choke a horse. Plus, when the Euros are doing a better job (relatively speaking) than we are, as far as attempting to find a path forward, well, that REALLY sucks.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 24, 2011 - 8:43pm.

Yes Allan they do both suck. They really suck. I am not a fan a repubs, believe me but damn I am tired of the world saying they haven't offered up any solutions. Paul freeking Ryan offered a solution and per my other posts, solutions have been offered that get past the debt ceiling yet we are told that nothing has been offered and the country is being held hostage.

What the hell has this nation done to deserve a AAA credit rating anyway. We can't balance a budget. We havent even had a budget...We spent a trillion, (that we know of) that was filled with so much pork it is sickening, (all the while being told that if we didn't do it we would suffer economic calamities that we would never dream of...) we are on an astronomic spending trajectory... we have been monotizing our own debt...yet we keep spending...AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN... being told the sky will fall if we don't allow for more debt... and we need more debt so we can keep spending!

Really? If the debt ceiling doesn't get raised do you guys think we are gonna miss our interest payments to China? Furthermore how useless is a debt ceiling when we are monetizing our own debt anyways? Guess what guys? The FED will just keep buying treasuries anyways!

If it wasn't so utterly ridiculous it would be sad.. but all one can really do is laugh...

Submitted by briansd1 on July 24, 2011 - 9:04pm.

From a historical context, the Republicans are the obstructionists here.

The debt ceiling is a ceiling that Congress put on itself. But Congress has spent the money already. The debt ceiling is not about future spending but about spending that Congress already approved.

The Republicans are creating an artificial crisis that wasn't there before. They should automatically raise the debt ceiling as it has been done so many times before.

Tax reforms, spending cuts and entitlements are separate issues to be dealt separately.

The Republicans are holding the country and the economy hostage.

PS: I think that Obama can unilaterally raise the debt ceiling but that won't help with the credit rating.

SD Realtor wrote:
Furthermore how useless is a debt ceiling when we are monetizing our own debt anyways? Guess what guys? The FED will just keep buying treasuries anyways!

BTW, if he debt ceiling isn't raised, the Treasury won't be able to issue more treasuries for the Fed or anybody else to buy.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 24, 2011 - 9:47pm.

briansd1 wrote:
From a historical context, the Republicans are the obstructionists here.

The Republicans are creating an artificial crisis that wasn't there before. They should automatically raise the debt ceiling as it has been done so many times before.

The Republicans are holding the country and the economy hostage.

Brian: Here's an interesting link: http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising...

This is Obama in 2006 (when he was Senator Obama) opposing raising the debt ceiling and calling it a "failure of leadership".

Huh. So, now its bad faith on the GOP's part to not raise the debt ceiling, but it was good faith in 2006 when Senator Obama opposed it? Help me out with this, because I'm confused. I mean, it sounds like COMPLETE BULLSHIT to completely reverse course from then to now. Maybe I'm missing something?

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 24, 2011 - 10:02pm.

Brian from a present perspective the republicans have offered up solutions that have been rejected. The president who you support in an almost blind faith manner has said that he will not support any solution that doesn't push the issue past the elections. That is not political? That is not obstructionist?

It was congress that KNOWINGLY voted for those spending measures knowing damn well they exceeded the debt ceiling. Your solution to being addicted to spending is to allow more borrowing. Luckily there is political balance in place otherwise this would have been rubber stamped with no spending cuts.

Furthermore while you clearly appear to be intelligent I clearly would rather trust expertise in the field of economics and finance who are not as threatened by the all knowing Geitner and Bernanke and Obama. (Seeing as how that threesome have done such a great job)

The bottom line is that the treasury is due to bring in 172B in August. As bonds come due the Treasury would use the income to pay them off. This actually LOWERS the debt owed. That then lowers the debt beneath the friggin ceiling (which is a joke anyways) and the treasury can then reissue more debt (which would be stupid but make spenders happy! YAY more debt!!)

How bout some math Brian?

That means there’s enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).

That leaves 39 billion to pay the following bills:
That leaves you with about $39 billion to fund (or not fund) the following:

Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)
IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)
Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)
Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)
Department of Education ($20.2 billion)
Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)
Other spending, such as Departments of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)

So who makes the decision on who gets paid and who does not?The treasury of course.

Will this likely be catastrophic? No... will it be very very painful? Yes. Will we miss interest payments? No. Is this going to have to be done sooner or later? Yes.

***********

You still have not qualified how the repubs are holding the country hostage? They have already sent a plan to the senate? They have been negotiating?

Why cant the president accept a short term plan Brian? What is the problem with that? Why couldnt they accept the plan delivered to the Senate on Friday?

********

Really it must be very interesting to have such blind faith in something that your party can never be at fault for anything and that any mode of thought that is not in line with what your party wants is completely wrong. That you can label any alternative thoughts as obstructionist, hypocritical, outlandish, racist, homophobic, or right wing crazy.

Submitted by gandalf on July 24, 2011 - 10:51pm.

WRONG. Prior to the TEA PARTY JACKASSES, nobody used the debt ceiling to negotiate policy. It's a procedural thing, required to operate the government.

FOR THE MOTHER FUCKING RECORD:

DEFICIT = Bush Tax Cuts and Iraq War.

REPUBLICAN POLICY < 2008.

CHENEY = "Deficits don't matter."

2009 < GOP OPPOSED to the deficit.

Debt ceiling default = TAX INCREASE for USA.

Flirting with disaster on the currency side.

Submitted by gandalf on July 24, 2011 - 10:38pm.

WRONG AGAIN. Federal discretionary spending has been CONSTANT on a percentage basis since Clinton.

DEFICIT?

- Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
- Iraq War (Retarded response to 9/11)
- Bush Medicare Part B Entitlement

The same GOP asses who voted FOR Bush's Medicare increase, FOR the Iraq War and FOR Bush's tax cuts for rich fucks...

...are now opposed to deficits.

Submitted by gandalf on July 24, 2011 - 10:44pm.

At this point, it is irresponsible to support the Republican Party.

I'm not a partisan.

The Republican party platform is BATSHIT INSANE.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 24, 2011 - 10:52pm.

Yes they are asses. The GOP are assholes.

Does that make you feel better? I don't like them. They are no better or worse then the democrats to me. Obviously to you they are much worse. Good to see you have such faith in at least one party.

They were terrible choices and I didnt like them then nor do I now. For the record look back at my posts in THIS THREAD saying WE WILL HAVE TO PAY HIGHER TAXES and that I am okay with that. I didn't even say the rich. I said we meaning all of us.

Just dont say they haven't put any proposals forward because they have.

Nobody has ventured an answer about why a solution has to be longer term then the elections either? Why is Obama so adamant about the solution being after the elections?

If this is a formality to keep everything skipping right along then why can't it be short term?

What is the problem with that?

Also when does the deficit get dealt with? Was it dealt with over the past 2 years? It sure the hell didn't get dealt with when Bush was in office. That was a joke. So I guess the answer is to keep f-cking up cuz we f-cked it up before. In fact let's not just keep f-cking it up, lets crank up that spending even more and REALLY f-ck it up.

You can brush off the shortcomings of this administration by blaming the previous administration for how long? Another year? Another 3 years? When Obama is gone and the next pres comes in and is another party stooge (pick a party) then I am sure he will blame the previous 2 administrations as well... So yes your best response is a vehement attack on the previous stooges. The current repubs are just as much assholes as the previous ones. I know that. The plans they have offered are not great, I don't agree with not accepting some tax hikes, (oh I mean revenue increases) but don't say they haven't offered anything up.

Submitted by gandalf on July 24, 2011 - 11:04pm.

Obama is awful, a weak President. No reforms, no accountability.

The GOP sucks worse, in a putrid, historic 'suck-shit' kind of way.

I have no answers. It is awful.