Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:58 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,524,110 times
Reputation: 25816

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Or ball-less Obama is afraid to put forth spending cuts he would agree to sign. Some leader.

A leader that is too scared to lose his Kardashian like celebrity status. He'll simply hide out in Hawaii basking in all his glory.
I think you are starting to get senile in your old age. Who took more vacations this far into their Presidency???

He simply is not going to allow the party of cranky old white men box him into a corner.

Ball is in their court - IF the party of NO wishes to play chicken - then let's do so. I'm willing to let ALL the cuts expire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:02 AM
 
15,047 posts, read 8,871,547 times
Reputation: 9510
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
This is definitely where Romney would have been a better president, a better leader at a time leadership is needed. He wouldn't be as afraid to think up some spending cuts. Obama is proving himself to be very gutless.
Republicans before the election: We demand spending cuts! Deep spending cuts! There must be spending cuts! No revenue increases without significant spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts!!

Republicans after the election: (whining) President Obama, tell us what spending cuts we should demand.

Now THAT'S the definition of gutless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,731,596 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post

Because of the many loopholes, no one actually paid 91% of their income in taxes.

No different that how the current tax code means very few of the highest earned incoime folk pay 35%, today.

Most common welfare programs are only leading to higher rates of poverty and in 1960 we were the wealthiest nation on the planet -- without all those welfare programs that are making us poor.
Actually, the poverty rate in 1960 was about the same as it is today and nothing worth bragging about.

When Congress talks about entitlement reform, they are talking about age and means testing for SS and Medicare and do so because that's the deepest black hole.

I have no recollection of any Republican majority talking about reducing SNAP benefits, disallowing Fritos and soda pop to be eligible for SNAP, Section 8, returning unemployment benefits to 26 weeks or any of the other social welfare programs that tick off the man on the street. No one is talking about the mind blowing cost of end of life care for the elderly.

The number one non partisan priority of Congress is getting reelected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:05 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,692,979 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Actually, the poverty rate in 1960 was about the same as it is today and nothing worth bragging about.

When Congress talks about entitlement reform, they are talking about age and means testing for SS and Medicare and do so because that's the deepest black hole.

I have no recollection of any Republican majority talking about reducing SNAP benefits, Section 8, returning unemployment to 26 weeks or any of the other social welfare programs that tick off the man on the street. No one is talking about the mind blowing cost of end of life care for the elderly.

The number one priority of Congress is getting reelected.
EXACTLY!!! Now you understand what a total waste of money the War on Poverty has been.

We could easily cut out all the welfare handout spending that has been added since 1960 -- and be just as well off. The many billions of dollars that have been thrown at poverty have accomplished nothing at all -- except that back in 1960, most babies weren't being born to single welfare mothers with births paid by Medicaid, now they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:07 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,692,979 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Republicans before the election: We demand spending cuts! Deep spending cuts! There must be spending cuts! No revenue increases without significant spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts!!

Republicans after the election: (whining) President Obama, tell us what spending cuts we should demand.

Now THAT'S the definition of gutless.
Yes -- they need to keep with the spending cuts, Obama simply needs to lay the ones out on the table that he would sign in.

Obama just has to stop being gutless and prove himself to be a leader. Or is he not the president? Is he not a leader?

Remember how it is that the tax cuts were named "Bush tax cuts". It's because Bush wasn't scared to propose them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:08 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,524,110 times
Reputation: 25816
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Actually, the poverty rate in 1960 was about the same as it is today and nothing worth bragging about.

When Congress talks about entitlement reform, they are talking about age and means testing for SS and Medicare and do so because that's the deepest black hole.

I have no recollection of any Republican majority talking about reducing SNAP benefits, disallowing Fritos and soda pop to be eligible for SNAP, Section 8, returning unemployment benefits to 26 weeks or any of the other social welfare programs that tick off the man on the street. No one is talking about the mind blowing cost of end of life care for the elderly.

The number one non partisan priority of Congress is getting reelected.
I don't think the Republicans understand exactly where the spending is coming from. Most older Americans voted for Romeny - yet will scream and yell if anyone dare touch their 'Medicare". I guess they really don't want THAT programe cut.

It's easier to just blame 'welfare' and single Mom's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,731,596 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Republicans before the election: We demand spending cuts! Deep spending cuts! There must be spending cuts! No revenue increases without significant spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts!!

Republicans after the election: (whining) President Obama, tell us what spending cuts we should demand.

Now THAT'S the definition of gutless.
Seems to me Obama spent the past 4 years negotiating with himself.Congress made clear their only priority was a one term President. That did not pan out, as planned.

What cuts will the Republican Congress support?

Clue: It's not the entitlements that seem to tick off the man on the street.You are not going to hear the Republicans demanding cuts to the SNAP Program,Section 8, unemployment benefits, disallowing junk food to be purchased with SNAP cards or any of the other welfare programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:13 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,692,979 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
I don't think the Republicans understand exactly where the spending is coming from. Most older Americans voted for Romeny - yet will scream and yell if anyone dare touch their 'Medicare". I guess they really don't want THAT programe cut.

It's easier to just blame 'welfare' and single Mom's.
And most of the over 2 million long term unemployed voted for Obama -- and keep in mind that as of Jan 1, all that free money will end for the chronic unemployed. Imagine when they realize that Obama has allowed their free money to end and they have to get off their butts and find jobs. They will be angry.

It won't hurt the Republicans that they're angry because these are die-hard Obama supporters. So yes, Obama will simply play the blame-game and his adoring fans will tune into Letterman to ooh and aah over him the same as they always do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:15 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,524,110 times
Reputation: 25816
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Seems to me Obama spent the past 4 years negotiating with himself. He learned something along the way.

What cuts will the Republican Congress support?
Clue: It's not the entitlements that seem to tick off the man on the street.
Why does no one understand that? The cuts will be to Medicare and SS because they are the most costly.

Yet, all the Republicans on the street are willing to talk about are the Obamaphones and food stamps. That's all I see on FB as well ~ do they not have a clue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 10:16 AM
 
15,047 posts, read 8,871,547 times
Reputation: 9510
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Yes -- they need to keep with the spending cuts, Obama simply needs to lay the ones out on the table that he would sign in.

Obama just has to stop being gutless and prove himself to be a leader. Or is he not the president? Is he not a leader?

Remember how it is that the tax cuts were named "Bush tax cuts". It's because Bush wasn't scared to propose them.
Obama doesn't necessarily want spending cuts and didn't campaign on them--the GOP did. He campaigned on ending the tax cuts for the top 2%, and that's what he proposed. The GOP campaigned on spending cuts--it's up to them to now counter the president's opening move and put what they want on the table. Then they talk about those cuts. That's what negotiation means. One side makes a proposal, the other side counters, and they discuss.

You don't negotiate by defining the opposition's demands for them. The fact that you don't get that makes further discussion with you pointless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top