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)
View Poll Results: Will we go off the Fiscal Cliff on Dec. 31
Yes 33 53.23%
No 29 46.77%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,616,351 times
Reputation: 2202

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Obama should have stopped spending like a madman.
Obama doesn't pass one law. He only signs them. The Congress gets us in debt in order to pay off the ultra-wealthy benefactors who fund their races and expect payback.

The only thing that Obama can do is veto. Finally he has discovered he has that pen at his disposal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,616,351 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Yes - what and when. That's up to Boehner, and to some degree the weak sisters in the Senate. All Obama has to do now is stick to the position he's just laid out. If Boehner refuses to give in, or if he can't control his mob, he might well be gambling his majority and his speakership.
I think Obama has said loud and clear. He is no longer playing the game of kick the can. That game is over. Finally! Americans want debt reduction and they are going to get it. However, it is going to be quite painful. Debt spending is what has been keeping the economy above the recession level. I wonder what will happen next?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,616,351 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Obama said balance but said nothing about cuts. Obama just wants to spend more money on green energy.
Are you just listening to Limbaugh and relaying his afternoon show?

As has been said many times, Obama has offered meaningful cuts many a times and continues to state he wants cuts. The ones pushing back are our representatives in Congress who use our money to pay off the rich. Turn off your head phones for a second and look around at what is happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:31 PM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,225,450 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Obama should have stopped spending like a madman.
Yeah, he should have cut funding for both wars, that would've made the right wing really happy.
and you are failing to realize that some of this problem isn't soley owned by Obama either, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,901,262 times
Reputation: 10028
I for one would like a clear example of "spending like a madman". I'd like the name of one of those "whole programs" that should get the axe. The EPA? Planned Parenthood? Dept. of Education? What? And, more to the point. Did Obama create any of those agencies? Did he emplace their funding? Why should Obama be the instrument by which the civilized underpinnings of the pre-eminent Democracy of the Free World are dismantled? Scurry away from the issue like roaches from a light in the room if you want, but if you are going to continue throwing around the talking point of spending and spending cuts, lets have your axe picks. Is that too much to ask?

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 02:01 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,750,280 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
No. Worst thing that will happen is that they'll come to a last minute deal to keep the tax rates the same for everyone, and they'll pass a short term continuing resolution to kick the can down the road.

Best thing that can happen is a bipartisan deal to regulate Washingtons spending and pay down the debt over a 10 year peiod.

Most likely there'll be something in the middle.
lets hope you are right, however i think that obama is going to push hard for his ideaology, and in pushing he will end up doing exactly what he did in 2009 and alienate the republicans, again, and that will cause no end of problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Those who are opposing a balanced approach to our fiscal problems are for some reason wearing blinders to the phenomenon that the ultra-rich are the biggest beneficiaries of huge government spending and huge tax cuts. The ultra-rich want it both ways. They want more government spending (and they get it) and they want to pay less taxes via huge deductions as well as lower rates. If you are fighting to make the wealthier, wealthier, save your energy. They are doing quite well without your help. They now own 40% of the country and it is growing. It is the largest wealth gap in history.
so you think the rich dont pay their fair share? lets look at that shall we? the top 1% take in about 19% of the income, and pay out about 37% of the taxes collected by the government. the top 10% pay nearly 70% of the taxes collected, so how much more should they pay? in the end you cant raise taxes on the rich enough to cover much of anything the government does. tax increases on the rich are in reality feel good measures for the democrats to try and prove that they have the best interests of the 98% in mind. in the end the wealthy are not going to suffer one way or the other. what will happen though is the middle class and the poor will suffer more than they do now.

why? because the wealthy will do what it takes to maintain their income margins and protect their assets. they will do things like;

lay off employees
cut back on their donations to charity
raise prices on the goods and services they sell
move parts of their businesses and money off shore


Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
First it is $200K (single people) and $250K for married people. He will veto a bill if it includes these people and if he veto's the bill the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

Compromise my ass, I didn't see a compromise. It's political drama and a power play. Enjoy your tax hike Obama voters.

Before Obama was elected the first time he knew full well there was a debt and spending problem yet he spent more and more money instead and wants everyday hard working americans to pay for his spending.
well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Are you just listening to Limbaugh and relaying his afternoon show?

As has been said many times, Obama has offered meaningful cuts many a times and continues to state he wants cuts. The ones pushing back are our representatives in Congress who use our money to pay off the rich. Turn off your head phones for a second and look around at what is happening.
the only meaningful cuts obama has offered are those in military spending, and his own secretary of defense has said that those cuts that obama wants will devastate the military. obama has no clue about how things work, and he has surrounded himself with people who also have no clue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,616,351 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I for one would like a clear example of "spending like a madman". I'd like the name of one of those "whole programs" that should get the axe. The EPA? Planned Parenthood? Dept. of Education? What? And, more to the point. Did Obama create any of those agencies? Did he emplace their funding? Why should Obama be the instrument by which the civilized underpinnings of the pre-eminent Democracy of the Free World are dismantled? Scurry away from the issue like roaches from a light in the room if you want, but if you are going to continue throwing around the talking point of spending and spending cuts, lets have your axe picks. Is that too much to ask?

H
I think Democrats have to look clearly at what happened under the first Obama term.

One of his first actions was to totally bail out Wall Street with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. He continues to fund Wall Street by allowing the Federal Reserve to print hundreds of billions of dollars which the Federal Reserve gives to the banks at no cost (can you get a interest free loan from the Fed? I sure cannot).

Those banks that put this country into an economic free fall should not have been 100% bailed out. It was perfectly possible to simply cover FDIC insured deposits and let the Wall Street big wigs take the losses that they deserve. Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC, says as much.

It was a big payback by Obama to the Wall Street bankers who helped fund his first campaign and we all are still paying for it. For me it was a complete betrayal.

In addition, Obama could have ended the Bush tax cuts during his first term in office. He had a majority in both houses including a super-majority in the Senate. Again he betrayed the people that voted for him.

I hope this time around he lives up to his promises. It may be possible, since this time around Wall Street for the most part gave him nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 02:07 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,570,473 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Yes - what and when. That's up to Boehner, and to some degree the weak sisters in the Senate. All Obama has to do now is stick to the position he's just laid out. If Boehner refuses to give in, or if he can't control his mob, he might well be gambling his majority and his speakership.
Actually it's up to Obama -- or is he not the leader of this country?

Obama needs to come up with some very big spending cuts -- part of the compromise after all. He needs to put his money where his mouth is -- spending cuts MUST be made, no two ways about it. He needs to come up with a plan that is acceptable to the other side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 02:10 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,570,473 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I for one would like a clear example of "spending like a madman". I'd like the name of one of those "whole programs" that should get the axe. The EPA? Planned Parenthood? Dept. of Education? What? And, more to the point. Did Obama create any of those agencies? Did he emplace their funding? Why should Obama be the instrument by which the civilized underpinnings of the pre-eminent Democracy of the Free World are dismantled? Scurry away from the issue like roaches from a light in the room if you want, but if you are going to continue throwing around the talking point of spending and spending cuts, lets have your axe picks. Is that too much to ask?

H
Any one or all of those would be good for starters.

What Obama needs to do is go back to a time when the budget was balanced and the debt didn't have to be raised. See what programs were needed for the successful times of this country - because as we can all easily see, we're falling in wealth and educational levels, poverty has only rapidly increased because the anti-poverty programs have failed miserably.

We could proportion government spending back to the times we had a successful space program and our universities and schools were viewed as top-notch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,616,351 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
so you think the rich dont pay their fair share?
I think that they get all the money they want from the government and then pay back a small portion. Heck, if I can get a trillion dollars from the government, I would be happy to give back 25%. Just keep the money coming. [/quote]

Quote:
why? because the wealthy will do what it takes to maintain their income margins and protect their assets. they will do things like;
Exactly. The will do everything they can, including electing representatives to Congress, put bankers on the Federal Reserve Board and then have Congress change the rules to their favor, get the tons of money from Congress, and then ... have the Federal Reserve and Congress bail them out whenever they lose money. They even got Obama to send hundreds of billions of money their way in bailout money (via Geithner and Sommers).

It is a cute game. It is like playing a game of Monopoly where one player gets all the money he wants from the Banker. The ultra-rich are using the government to redistribute wealth to the top 1%.
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 08:19 AM.

© 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