GOP Rejects Obama Offer of $1.6 Trillion Tax Increase

[Reality]

GOP Rejects Obama Offer of $1.6 Trillion Tax Increase

Excerpts: Poster comments in bold italics.

“If the president is going to lead on this critical issue, he has to propose a plan that can actually pass,” said Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. “This is simply not a serious proposal.” Same tactic that caused grid lock before.

"It would permanently increase the U.S. debt limit to avoid the need for congressional action, said one of the aides, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly." Blank check!

Geithner said in a Nov. 16 Bloomberg Television interview that the U.S. should abolish the debt ceiling, arguing that it enabled the threat of default in 2011. “The sooner the better,” he said. Republicans have used previous debates over increasing the debt limit to hold out for policy changes. Blank check again!

The administration has been consistent about its plans during the campaign and after the Nov. 6 election, said Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat. Only the gullible believed what you had to say.

“The voters knew what the president was saying,” Mikulski said. “They voted for the president. The election’s over. Let’s get on with it.” So Mam, just because Obama promised the gullible it will be Christmas all year long, make that 4 years, the rest of the country and especially those in Congress who are not swayed by his rhetoric are supposed to line up and say "Yes Sir". The ground must have been awfully hard when you fell out of that tree.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gop-re ... de=10EC0-1


Michelle, why want these people do what I tell them?[/i]

[bannination]

Republicans are going to hold the economy hostage again, there's a big surprise. I guess they learned nothing the first time.

The Debt Limit, myths vs facts (PDF)

[Supsalemgr]

I just hope the GOP does not cave. Where are some viable suggestions from the administration on entitlements? We must adress SS. I don't have a problem raising the earnings cap if we also make some meaningful adjustments to eligibility age for those under 50. The same could apply to Medicare. To ask for a "blank check" on the debt ceiling is insulting.

[O Really]

They'll cave. At least to some degree. Why? Because since some of them learned that not all polls are left wing lies, they have actually read some polls and find that if the "cliff" occurs, they'll get blamed no matter what. They're pretty much in a lose-lose situation, so it's going to turn into everyone for themself in trying to keep their seats.

[Supsalemgr]

I would be open to not having a cap, but in that case I would be totally opposed to means testing. The reason being the folks who paid in the most would have the lowest benefits. That is a pure welfare program and reeks of wealth redistribution.

[Wneglia]

Republicans are going to hold the economy hostage again, there's a big surprise. I guess they learned nothing the first time.

The Debt Limit, myths vs facts (PDF)

The so called debt ceiling is a joke anyway. We may as well do away with it. Default is inevitable; it is just a matter of when. The debt is actually $86.8 trillion (550% GDP), and there is no way it can ever be repaid. May as well keep borrowing money until we default and give our country to China.

[Supsalemgr]

SS has turned into a legalized ponzi scheme by Congress raiding the "Trust Fund" which is non-existent. I don't agree with your thoughts about wealth distribution and I will leave it at that. If one pays into something then they should be entitled to the benefits of that program. I know Vrede will not agree with this either, but I believe folks under 50 should also be able to self direct their SS contributions into a self directed fund that cannot be touched by any entity of the federal government. If they choose to place all their contribution to the self directed fund they would opt out of any government pension plan at their eligibility age.

[O Really]

Let's be sure of what program we're talking about. There's a difference in Social Security, which is an insurance program, and "SSI" or Supplemental Security Income which is run by Social Security Administration but is funded from general funds, not Social Security Trust funds.

Social Security is a defined benefit pension plan that would not be in any particular financial trouble if it weren't for re-allocation of funds, and if they got funding calculations done by real actuaries instead of grandstanding elected yay-hoos.

The SSI that Republicans would like to cut is a limited-eligibility program for people who are over 65, or blind or disabled and have very limited income. Sure guys - who is it really wants to kill off gramma?

In my view, it's not unreasonable to increase the age of eligibility for Social Security, nor is it unreasonable to increase the contribution rate. Working life expectancy - and real life expectancy - has increased a lot since Social Security was first passed. No more mandatory retirement age allowed. More people becoming eligible for benefits lasting longer. Simple math - no politics necessary.

[O Really]

SS has turned into a legalized ponzi scheme by Congress raiding the "Trust Fund" which is non-existent. I don't agree with your thoughts about wealth distribution and I will leave it at that. If one pays into something then they should be entitled to the benefits of that program. I know Vrede will not agree with this either, but I believe folks under 50 should also be able to self direct their SS contributions into a self directed fund that cannot be touched by any entity of the federal government. If they choose to place all their contribution to the self directed fund they would opt out of any government pension plan at their eligibility age.

Wrong, misrepresented, and propagandized. It is not a ponzi scheme whether or not the trust fund is "raided." It is at worst an underfunded pension plan, which can be fixed. Social Security is not, nor has it ever been some public version of 401(k) with individual investment accounts. If you want to have one of those, you certainly can, but don't expect to do it through your own personal "raid" of the national pension plan. And if you pay into Social Security you absolute are entitled to the benefits of that program, as defined in the program.

[Supsalemgr]

"SS has turned into a legalized ponzi scheme by Congress raiding the "Trust Fund" which is non-existent."

I didn't mean to insinuate it was designed as a ponzi scheme, but Congress has made it that by taking funds intended for the benficiaries to the point there is not enough current funding to fund the long term benefits.

[O Really]

"SS has turned into a legalized ponzi scheme by Congress raiding the "Trust Fund" which is non-existent."

I didn't mean to insinuate it was designed as a ponzi scheme, but Congress has made it that by taking funds intended for the benficiaries to the point there is not enough current funding to fund the long term benefits.

Maybe, maybe not. Here's an interesting article about the "raiding." http://peoplespension.infoshop.org/blog ... %E2%80%9D/

[Wneglia]

Maybe there should also be some adjustments made for double and triple dippers with government pensions. Perhaps social security benefits should be reduced proportionately to other government benefits.

[O Really]

Maybe there should also be some adjustments made for double and triple dippers with government pensions. Perhaps social security benefits should be reduced proportionately to other government benefits.

Different eligibilities, different programs. What basis would there be for coordinating benefits? So let's say a guy spends 20 years in the military and earns retirement. Then he goes to work for ATF and earns another retirement. During all this time he's paid Social Security - and the ATF program is contributory, too. Why isn't he entitled to what he has earned and contributed to? Besides, "double dipping" usually refers to a person working and getting a salary and a pension at the same time.

[O Really]

...

I didn't mean to insinuate it was designed as a ponzi scheme, but Congress has made it that by taking funds intended for the benficiaries to the point there is not enough current funding to fund the long term benefits.

And besides, if that were totally accurate, then the monies taken out would amount to a loan from the SS fund, subject to repayment, would it not? If the problem is Congress' use of SS funds for something else, why aren't we all screaming to put/pay the money back instead of screaming to cut the program?

[Wneglia]

Just curious, Wneglia, given that soldiers can retire after the relatively short 20 years, are most of the "double and triple dippers with government pensions" that you cite veterans?

I'm sure many of them are.

[Supsalemgr]

...

I didn't mean to insinuate it was designed as a ponzi scheme, but Congress has made it that by taking funds intended for the benficiaries to the point there is not enough current funding to fund the long term benefits.

And besides, if that were totally accurate, then the monies taken out would amount to a loan from the SS fund, subject to repayment, would it not? If the problem is Congress' use of SS funds for something else, why aren't we all screaming to put/pay the money back instead of screaming to cut the program?

The funds are not there to be put back. If they were why would need to keep raising the debt ceiling?

I agree with O Really the solution is accept the reality of 2012. People are living longer and we should consider adjusting the eligibility age for folks under 50.

[O Really]

Even Fox understands that the debt and related topics have been distorted for politics.


"Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... snt-china/

[Wneglia]

YoBama- Listen to the Oracle

[Stinger]

GOP Rejects Obama Offer of $1.6 Trillion Tax Increase

Excerpts: Poster comments in bold italics.

“If the president is going to lead on this critical issue, he has to propose a plan that can actually pass,” said Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. “This is simply not a serious proposal.” Same tactic that caused grid lock before.

No, it isn't, dolt. Obama proposed what the result should end up being rather than where they would start bargaining from. The Greedy Old Phukkers simply stonewalled. He offered $3 spending cuts for every dollar in revenue, and the Robstructionists wouldn't budge. Now he's starting at a point his side of where the results should end up and negotiating from there.

Unlike you clowns who keep repeating the same stupid actions over and over again and expecting a different outcome, Obama is actually demonstrating a learning curve.


The administration has been consistent about its plans during the campaign and after the Nov. 6 election, said Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat. Only the gullible believed what you had to say.

Really? You believed it? Good for you. Maybe you're finally growing a second brain cell.

He said repeatedly what he would not accept. If you weren't smart enough to believe it, that's your problem.

“The voters knew what the president was saying,” Mikulski said. “They voted for the president. The election’s over. Let’s get on with it.” So Mam, just because Obama promised the gullible it will be Christmas all year long, make that 4 years, the rest of the country and especially those in Congress who are not swayed by his rhetoric are supposed to line up and say "Yes Sir". The ground must have been awfully hard when you fell out of that tree.

That's a singularly stupid and off-the-mark response. No one promised it would be Christmas all year long. What he promised was that the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 must end.

Try again.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gop-re ... de=10EC0-1

Newsmax. No wonder you're so ignorant and misinformed.

Michelle, why want these people do what I tell them?[/i]


Stupid again. The only thing Michelle ever told anyone to do was to eat a healthful diet . . . lardass.

[O Really]

I notice that a goal of Republicans has been met - George W Bush no longer exists, at least according to the Wall Street Journal.... funny... http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/ge ... picks=true