Obama has a great plan. It would cut $4.5 trillion over 10 years. The GOP will not agree with it because it will raise taxes by 3% on the top 2% of the country.
How do you not know this?
Where is Obamas PLAN?
- Thread starter Skulnik
- Start date
Obama has a great plan. It would cut $4.5 trillion over 10 years. The GOP will not agree with it because it will raise taxes by 3% on the top 2% of the country.
How do you not know this?
Ground Control to Major Tom... come in please... it's been on the table since April...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4256654...use/t/obama-cut-spending-raise-taxes-wealthy/
.........................................................................
Like its a secret that Boner will do anything in his power to make Obama look bad over this.
The longer it goes, the worse the GOP looks.
American might be stupid , but we aint this stupid.
its easy to spot the fawkers with no morals.
Why political polarization has gone wild in America (
Watching the extraordinary polarization in Washington today, many people have pointed the finger at the Tea Party saying it's ideologically extreme, refuses to compromise and cares more about purity than problem solving.
I happen to agree with much of that critique, but it doesn't really answer the question: Why has the Tea Party become so prominent? Why is it able to dominate Washington?
We've had plenty of ideologically charged movements come to Washington before. Think of Barry Goldwater or George McGovern.
But once in Washington the system encouraged compromise and governance.
Over the last few decades, however, what has changed are the rules organizing American politics. They now encourage small interest groups - including ideologically charged ones - to capture major political parties as well as Congress itself. Call it ' political narrowcasting.:scared
Here are some examples:
1) Redistricting has created safe seats so that for most House members, their only concern is a challenge from the right for Republicans and the left for Democrats. The incentive is to pander to the base, not the center.:facepalm:
2) Party primaries have been taken over by small groups of activists who push even popular senators to extreme positions. In Utah, for example, 3,500 conservative activists managed to take the well- regarded Senator Robert Bennett off the ballot. GOP senators like Orrin Hatch and John McCain have moved farther to the right, hoping to stave off similar assaults.
3) Changes in Congressional rules have also made it far more difficult to enact large, compromise legislation. In the wake of the Watergate Scandal, "Sunshine rules" were put into place that required open committee meetings and recorded votes. The purpose was to make Congress more open, more responsive - and so it has become to lobbyists, money and special interests. This is because they're the people who watch every committee vote and mobilize opposition to any withdrawal of subsidies or tax breaks.
4) Political polarization has also been fueled by a new media, which is also narrowcast.
Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he suggested that he might further the conservative agenda through an occasional compromise. That provoked a tirade from Rush Limbaugh, which then produced a torrent of angry e-mails and phone calls to Issa's office. Issa quickly and publicly apologized to Limbaugh and promised only opposition to Obama. Multiply that example a thousandfold, and you have the daily dynamic of Congress.
It's depressing, but the fact that our politics are the result of these structural shifts means they can be changed.
Mickey Edwards, a Republican and former House member from Oklahoma, has a highly intelligent essay in The Atlantic magazine suggesting a series of reforms that could make a difference. Some of them are large-scale, others are seemingly small but crucial changes in Congressional procedure.
Read: Fareed Zakaria's op-ed in The Washington Post on "A way out of our dysfunctional politics."
Some political scientists long hoped that American parties would become more ideologically pure and coherent, like European parties. They seem to have gotten their wish - and the result is abysmal.
Here's why: America does not have a parliamentary system like Europe's, in which one party takes control of all levers of political power - executive and legislative - enacts its agenda and then goes back to the voters. Power in the United States is shared by a set of institutions with overlapping authorities - Congress and the presidency. People have to cooperate for the system to work.
The Tea Party venerates the Founding Fathers. It should note that the one thing on which they all agreed was that adversarial political parties were bad for the American republic.
......................................................................
its just pathetic that the American ppl do not mean shit to them anymore.
They are all about self, their own partys, their own beliefs, and fawk everyone else.
I have said this before but what other new country in the world would want to have a system like ours where nothing can ever get done, huge money is bandied about, lobby ppl are grifters, the really rich get richer by fawking over the rest of America...
and on and on............
Watching the extraordinary polarization in Washington today, many people have pointed the finger at the Tea Party saying it's ideologically extreme, refuses to compromise and cares more about purity than problem solving.
I happen to agree with much of that critique, but it doesn't really answer the question: Why has the Tea Party become so prominent? Why is it able to dominate Washington?
We've had plenty of ideologically charged movements come to Washington before. Think of Barry Goldwater or George McGovern.
But once in Washington the system encouraged compromise and governance.
Over the last few decades, however, what has changed are the rules organizing American politics. They now encourage small interest groups - including ideologically charged ones - to capture major political parties as well as Congress itself. Call it ' political narrowcasting.:scared
Here are some examples:
1) Redistricting has created safe seats so that for most House members, their only concern is a challenge from the right for Republicans and the left for Democrats. The incentive is to pander to the base, not the center.:facepalm:
2) Party primaries have been taken over by small groups of activists who push even popular senators to extreme positions. In Utah, for example, 3,500 conservative activists managed to take the well- regarded Senator Robert Bennett off the ballot. GOP senators like Orrin Hatch and John McCain have moved farther to the right, hoping to stave off similar assaults.
3) Changes in Congressional rules have also made it far more difficult to enact large, compromise legislation. In the wake of the Watergate Scandal, "Sunshine rules" were put into place that required open committee meetings and recorded votes. The purpose was to make Congress more open, more responsive - and so it has become to lobbyists, money and special interests. This is because they're the people who watch every committee vote and mobilize opposition to any withdrawal of subsidies or tax breaks.
4) Political polarization has also been fueled by a new media, which is also narrowcast.
Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he suggested that he might further the conservative agenda through an occasional compromise. That provoked a tirade from Rush Limbaugh, which then produced a torrent of angry e-mails and phone calls to Issa's office. Issa quickly and publicly apologized to Limbaugh and promised only opposition to Obama. Multiply that example a thousandfold, and you have the daily dynamic of Congress.
It's depressing, but the fact that our politics are the result of these structural shifts means they can be changed.
Mickey Edwards, a Republican and former House member from Oklahoma, has a highly intelligent essay in The Atlantic magazine suggesting a series of reforms that could make a difference. Some of them are large-scale, others are seemingly small but crucial changes in Congressional procedure.
Read: Fareed Zakaria's op-ed in The Washington Post on "A way out of our dysfunctional politics."
Some political scientists long hoped that American parties would become more ideologically pure and coherent, like European parties. They seem to have gotten their wish - and the result is abysmal.
Here's why: America does not have a parliamentary system like Europe's, in which one party takes control of all levers of political power - executive and legislative - enacts its agenda and then goes back to the voters. Power in the United States is shared by a set of institutions with overlapping authorities - Congress and the presidency. People have to cooperate for the system to work.
The Tea Party venerates the Founding Fathers. It should note that the one thing on which they all agreed was that adversarial political parties were bad for the American republic.
......................................................................
its just pathetic that the American ppl do not mean shit to them anymore.
They are all about self, their own partys, their own beliefs, and fawk everyone else.
I have said this before but what other new country in the world would want to have a system like ours where nothing can ever get done, huge money is bandied about, lobby ppl are grifters, the really rich get richer by fawking over the rest of America...
and on and on............
Most Teapartiers are amazingly ignorant of the most basic facts of government and finance.
The glue that holds them together is that they can't stand having a mixed race president.
The glue that holds them together is that they can't stand having a mixed race president.
"All his election did was reinforce that the president and the government was there to take care of us and only deepened people's dependence. The "Peter Principle" mandates he return to his role as community organizer."
Nice Job Azbob--:toast:
-when you can get them gravitating to their "last resort"--"race baiting"
--you know you've spanked them pretty good. :lol:
Nice Job Azbob--:toast:
-when you can get them gravitating to their "last resort"--"race baiting"
--you know you've spanked them pretty good. :lol:
Last edited:
Muff:
Still waiting on you to quit throwing out senseless insults and race baiting.
One could argue that any and all of the social programs, starting with the New Deal and continuing in the Great Society plans are unconstitutional.
More recently, the Affordable Healthcare Act has been ruled unconstitutional by 2 judges.
Thinking that the Tea Party is only opposed to government spending because of the race of the President is ridiculous.
As I stated in the other thread, I debate the Constitution with people more learned and smarter than you and do not need to continue it here and be exposed to more of your drivel.
But, hey - as Lumi says, you're the smartest guy in the room so I guess anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and is therefore due the inane and insane insults you like to toss around.
Trench: You are asking me to be civil and rediscover my debating skills in my posts here yet you and Muff will insult nearly everyone on here who does not agree with your PoV? Seriously?
Still waiting on you to quit throwing out senseless insults and race baiting.
One could argue that any and all of the social programs, starting with the New Deal and continuing in the Great Society plans are unconstitutional.
More recently, the Affordable Healthcare Act has been ruled unconstitutional by 2 judges.
Thinking that the Tea Party is only opposed to government spending because of the race of the President is ridiculous.
As I stated in the other thread, I debate the Constitution with people more learned and smarter than you and do not need to continue it here and be exposed to more of your drivel.
But, hey - as Lumi says, you're the smartest guy in the room so I guess anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and is therefore due the inane and insane insults you like to toss around.
Trench: You are asking me to be civil and rediscover my debating skills in my posts here yet you and Muff will insult nearly everyone on here who does not agree with your PoV? Seriously?
This morning from Washington Post & Washington Times
REPORT: House, Senate agree on framework; Obama says no -- again...
'Is Obama a pathological liar?'
REPORT: House, Senate agree on framework; Obama says no -- again...
'Is Obama a pathological liar?'
That's why the President has veto power, to stop stupid shit.
Let him stand his ground against the teabaggers. It they want to continue acting like stupid* spoiled children, let them shut the government down.
*Cut my taxes but keep your government hands off my medicare.....
...and my Social Security, and farm subsidies, and public schools, roads, police, fire, and tax breaks.
That's right, cut my taxes, but don't lay a finger on what EYE want.
Waaa....waaa...waaa...waaa
Let him stand his ground against the teabaggers. It they want to continue acting like stupid* spoiled children, let them shut the government down.
*Cut my taxes but keep your government hands off my medicare.....
...and my Social Security, and farm subsidies, and public schools, roads, police, fire, and tax breaks.
That's right, cut my taxes, but don't lay a finger on what EYE want.
Waaa....waaa...waaa...waaa
Last edited:
ssd's finely honed debating skills were no doubt acquired in the same bar where he acquired his Constitutional expertise.
I always feel smarter after a few too.
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
I always feel smarter after a few too.
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
Last edited:
This is actually a very fair point in my opinion. Only now is the debt ceiling an issue for conservatives. Only now are they drawing the line to make political points. They CERTAINLY did not do that before - just when it benefits them.
And conservatives here didn't care that much either, because the money was going for things they personally supported, like war and tax cuts. It only becomes concerning when your own ox is being gored, it seems. And we know how many oxen the true conservatives like to have, don't we?
Here are some answers to your question:
1) the federal debt is rising by $4.1 billion per day...when Bush was in office it was $1.6...agreed that is also too high but, the current number is must be controlled.
2) Bush was "managing" two wars and was post 9-11. We are (hopefully) now winding down war #2. Note the $1.6 billion noted above included both wars.
3) the biggest reason is The Obama has continued to spend and spend and there are no results...the stimulas didn't work (unless you buy the arguement that "it would have been much worse without it) unemployment is still rising, housing is still way way down and confidence nears another low. Trust that this administration can be effective is very low.
The answer to your overall question is of course politics which each party plays and that is why it is an issue now. In that regard, The Obama had two years of a demo. house and senate. If you want to accept the premise that this is all Bushs' fault then you also have to admit that The Obama has had three years and has not been able to overcome one obstacle or change any situation or indicator for the better. (his budget was voted down by the Senate 97-0) Democrats also could have passsed a debt limit anytime during their two years in power that would have gotten us past the next election but, Harry Reid made the decision (look up the quote) not to pursue a long term extension.
Candidates should be asked the question re: if elected, will they vote to continue to raise the limit. That answer should be no and we should bite the bullet on the consequences.
Finally, in defense of the Republicans they did vote down the stimulas spending and it was re-packaged and they were then out-voted.
1) the federal debt is rising by $4.1 billion per day...when Bush was in office it was $1.6...agreed that is also too high but, the current number is must be controlled.
2) Bush was "managing" two wars and was post 9-11. We are (hopefully) now winding down war #2. Note the $1.6 billion noted above included both wars.
3) the biggest reason is The Obama has continued to spend and spend and there are no results...the stimulas didn't work (unless you buy the arguement that "it would have been much worse without it) unemployment is still rising, housing is still way way down and confidence nears another low. Trust that this administration can be effective is very low.
The answer to your overall question is of course politics which each party plays and that is why it is an issue now. In that regard, The Obama had two years of a demo. house and senate. If you want to accept the premise that this is all Bushs' fault then you also have to admit that The Obama has had three years and has not been able to overcome one obstacle or change any situation or indicator for the better. (his budget was voted down by the Senate 97-0) Democrats also could have passsed a debt limit anytime during their two years in power that would have gotten us past the next election but, Harry Reid made the decision (look up the quote) not to pursue a long term extension.
Candidates should be asked the question re: if elected, will they vote to continue to raise the limit. That answer should be no and we should bite the bullet on the consequences.
Finally, in defense of the Republicans they did vote down the stimulas spending and it was re-packaged and they were then out-voted.
I like that you brought up the 2 years Obama was Prez with a D controlled congress. The fact that he actually extended the Bush tax cuts on wealthy during that time of supposed socialist regime is mind boggling and apparently not appreciated by enough right wingers.. Why again does the GOP despise him so much? On several counts, he's actually more "conservative" than even the holy Reagan (who I like by the way - great President - we need responsible leaders like he and Clinton again. .....yes - even bush sr was alright too)
If the right can appreciate our taxes in the 90's just barely enough, then we can cut 4.5 trillion over 10 years. No other deal will rival this. It's all about compromise and logic. Why do 99% of GOP love wealthy 2% of GOP to the extent that they will not help push forth the most logical bipartisan offer we have seen since Clinton+GOP Congress welfare reform?
Why? Who loves this country enough to set aside pointless differences? We can remain on top, but we have to work together. Fox and MSNBC are not our leaders - our minds are. I know we are smarter than basic cable. .....Way smarter.
:toast:
If the right can appreciate our taxes in the 90's just barely enough, then we can cut 4.5 trillion over 10 years. No other deal will rival this. It's all about compromise and logic. Why do 99% of GOP love wealthy 2% of GOP to the extent that they will not help push forth the most logical bipartisan offer we have seen since Clinton+GOP Congress welfare reform?
Why? Who loves this country enough to set aside pointless differences? We can remain on top, but we have to work together. Fox and MSNBC are not our leaders - our minds are. I know we are smarter than basic cable. .....Way smarter.
:toast:
Bob...
1. How much of the $4.1 billion per day in "spending" is actually interest on $14 trillion? I bet you'd be shocked by the answer.
2. Bush didn't "manage" two wars. He started two wars, then he implemented tax cuts and didn't even include war costs in budget process. And is there really any need to rehash the intelligence and strategic blunders of both wars?
3. The Stimulus spending didn't translate to jobs because we all know that tax cuts don't create jobs. So I agree that the Obama administration missed the boat with the Stimulus bill in terms of job creation but that doesn't mean it didn't do a lot of people a lot of good during a time of economic recession and high unemployment. And many economists argue the reason the Stimulus bill wasn't more effective is because we didn't spend enough.
It's too bad Obama the President bears no resemblence to Obama the candidate. But what we progressives can't figure out is what you conservatives have against him? I mean, hasn't Obama the President morphed into the kind of Democrat that only a conservative could love? :shrug:
Why do conservatives hate The Obama, my view:
10% because he is black
60% because he is a democrat
10% because he is weak and not a leader
20% because of a specific issue (abortion, gays, etc)
I put myself in category three although I don't hate him. I think many people, regardless of affiliation knew that Washington had to change and, at least, during the campaign many thought he could bring that change and be a consensus builder.
It is obvious he is in over his head because he (as all politicians) is more worried about re-election than anything else...very disappointing.
I think most people in the US are liberal (or let's call it libertarian) on social issues but, conservative on financial issues. Unfortunately conservatives are being defined more and more by single social issue fanatics (some of the republican candidates are embarrassing). With that, conservatives come off as not caring about people, and pretty much against everything...sobeit. Ron Paul seems the only viable option to me.
Just as Clinton, The Obama moved to the middle in spite of his convictions. If not for the impeachment, Clinton probably would have returned to his roots in his second term. Hopefully The Obama gets a better team around him for the second term and perhaps he can make some positive change but, that is very unlikely.
10% because he is black
60% because he is a democrat
10% because he is weak and not a leader
20% because of a specific issue (abortion, gays, etc)
I put myself in category three although I don't hate him. I think many people, regardless of affiliation knew that Washington had to change and, at least, during the campaign many thought he could bring that change and be a consensus builder.
It is obvious he is in over his head because he (as all politicians) is more worried about re-election than anything else...very disappointing.
I think most people in the US are liberal (or let's call it libertarian) on social issues but, conservative on financial issues. Unfortunately conservatives are being defined more and more by single social issue fanatics (some of the republican candidates are embarrassing). With that, conservatives come off as not caring about people, and pretty much against everything...sobeit. Ron Paul seems the only viable option to me.
Just as Clinton, The Obama moved to the middle in spite of his convictions. If not for the impeachment, Clinton probably would have returned to his roots in his second term. Hopefully The Obama gets a better team around him for the second term and perhaps he can make some positive change but, that is very unlikely.
