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.
Boehner first proposed to Obama getting $800 billion in new revenue. The fiscal cliff deal raised $600 billion in new revenue. Boehner has proposed closing tax loopholes to raise more revenue in the past.
If you want to help cut spending you could decline social security and Medicare when you're eligible.
You cannot be serious! Asking that of citizens who have paid in to SS all their working lives is a slap in the face to all of us who are still forking over that tax. As for Medicare, I think it might need an overhaul, and I'm not talking about Obama's AHCA.
Does it give you pleasure to insult millions of people, dem and rep, who currently are paying into a system that they have been told will benefit them someday? I think you lean left, are you going to forgo your benefits when the time comes? Do you send in more tax money than you owe? Put your money where your mouth is! Do as you say but don't expect other citizens to follow suit. According to the numbers on welfare, most of us can't affort to pay the taxes we currently owe, much less give more.
The pattern of executive functions within a Westminster System is quite complex. In essence, the head of state, usually a monarch or president, is a ceremonial figurehead who is the theoretical, nominal or de jure source of executive power within the system. In practice, such a figure does not actively exercise executive powers, even though executive authority may be exercised in his/her name.
The head of government, usually called the prime minister or premier, will ideally have the support of a majority in the responsible house, and must in any case be able to ensure the existence of no absolute majority against the government. If the parliament passes a resolution of no confidence, or refuses to pass an important bill such as the budget, then the government must either resign so that a different government can be appointed or seek a parliamentary dissolution so that new general elections may be held in order to re-confirm or deny the government's mandate.
See the problem is the two party presidential system you should try a Westminster parliamentary system that way there is no Grid lock between two sides of government and budgets have to get passed or the current elected government must resign then dissolve parliament and have federal elections called or appoint another Government but in a multiparty platform.
It means things have to get done and begets and bills have to pass and be done every year to keep things moving and avoid Bi-partisan Gridlock where nothing gets done since both sides will not work together and you have no way to get rid gridlocked government of and appoint or elect another Government that will get things done.
The sequester was supposed to force a compromise deal, but a deal wasn't reached. Watching republicans play the blame game instead of compromising shows they are the ones interested in politics.
Whatever the the GOP accuses Obama of doing, theyre doing. It's all projection.
Oh no you don't.... Obama said if anyone put forth legislation that attempted to stop sequester he would veto it. Obama and the Dems intended to use the sequester was to squeeze and force the Republicans to raise taxes AGAIN! Since Obama refused to make cuts in a BALANCED and reasonable way the Repubs said fine, we will get our cuts through sequester.
Obama and the dems are not liking it so much now and are now trying to put the blame on the republicans. What is good for Obama is he knows that raising taxes the last time WILL negatively effect the economy. See he gets to blame the republicans for not bending over for sequester. We know the game, his bought and paid for media don't want you to know the game so the point blame elsewhere. Of course that is all Obama did ever since he stepped into office is blame everyone and everything else but himself. nothing new her folks.
As if his chicken little act didnt influence some of those low information people who were polled.....
Of course you would rely on that. Obama lied and you know it, and you know damn well that probably affected some of those polled on the matter.
All people hear is whatever the president says. The media are no longer journalists, they are incurious tools, taking dictation, and reporting it as news.
0bama has been more dishonest and deceitful the past week then he has ever been. I wonder how he become any worse and not have everyone finally turn on him.
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
Boehner first proposed to Obama getting $800 billion in new revenue. The fiscal cliff deal raised $600 billion in new revenue. Boehner has proposed closing tax loopholes to raise more revenue in the past.
If you want to help cut spending you could decline social security and Medicare when you're eligible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizjo
You cannot be serious! Asking that of citizens who have paid in to SS all their working lives is a slap in the face to all of us who are still forking over that tax. As for Medicare, I think it might need an overhaul, and I'm not talking about Obama's AHCA.
Does it give you pleasure to insult millions of people, dem and rep, who currently are paying into a system that they have been told will benefit them someday? I think you lean left, are you going to forgo your benefits when the time comes? Do you send in more tax money than you owe? Put your money where your mouth is! Do as you say but don't expect other citizens to follow suit. According to the numbers on welfare, most of us can't affort to pay the taxes we currently owe, much less give more.
Yea, winter_sucks is an idiot. His solution is to cut off the people who paid ALL THEIR LIVES into social security but let the dead weight (welfare leaches) who IS NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE alone.
The Republicans already agreed to 2 tax hikes. Obama wants another one and then after that another one. They won't budge this time. Admit it, we have a president that does not know how to negotiate or if he does will not.
It's your money they are talking about. Guess you love to pay taxes. Why don't you send more in this time and help Obama out?
Yea and Obama and the Dems are the people who calls people greedy? They want all our money, middle class, rich, working poor and the liberal fools are letting him get away with it.
I would much rather have a government who doesn't see us as their slaves and their piggy bank (not Obama and the dems for sure). The funny part is because people are working class they think they are off the radar. They found out with payroll tax but there is more of your money going to Obama for you to learn?
As if his chicken little act didnt influence some of those low information people who were polled.....
Of course you would rely on that. Obama lied and you know it, and you know damn well that probably affected some of those polled on the matter.
Those low information voters were more worried about Big Bird then they were about sequestration lol. Some of the low information voters went to Washington DC to march against the government stopping payments to Big Bird.
Talk about stupidity. And try to tell them there are more important things.... listen to them whine now.
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.
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.
