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.
Thanks for the update. I swear, the Republicans are a sub-cult of the bin-Ladenists! They HATE America! They want America to FAIL! They want our seniors to EAT CAT FOOD! And not the good kind, mind you, not the Tender Vittles -- they want them to eat generic dry food.
Thanks for the update. I swear, the Republicans are a sub-cult of the bin-Ladenists! They HATE America! They want America to FAIL! They want our seniors to EAT CAT FOOD! And not the good kind, mind you, not the Tender Vittles -- they want them to eat generic dry food.
So Obama creates this Sequestration (probably news to the many fact-challenged individuals on this forum), yet the Republicans hate America and want it to fail?
Obama created the sequestration as a bargaining chip to the Republicans who wanted us to default on our debt otherwise. It was hardly something he wanted to do. And then 174 Republicans in the House (more than the Dems) voted for it.
So who is factually challenged here? The Repubs will not stop the sequestration unless we cut cut cut with no more revenue increases. Obama is offering to do both, in fact he relies more heavily on cuts than new revenue streams. The American people are with him, we want a balanced approach. The Repubs are drawing themselves further and further into irrelevance.
The doomsday scenarios are political talking points. Plain and simple. Anyone who thinks cutting $85 billion out of a $3.4T budget is suddenly going to cause economic and social collapse needs to wake up.
A scaled example: The average American spends $4142/mth on various needs and wants (from BLS). The 2.5% cut in sequestration would equate to ~$104. Are you telling me there is not $104 to cut from all of that spending that does not mean moving, selling your car, or starving yourself or your kids?
This entire problem can be solved very easily. The Obama administration has studies from the GAO and CBO that indicates that overlapping and obsolete agencies and programs in the government total more than $200 billion in wasteful spending. Obama can draft a bill, with the help of his Democratic Congresspeople, to implement changes in all of those labeled programs to cut out $200 billion in spending. Manufactured crisis averted. The incessant need to raise taxes AGAIN is actually somewhat annoying and is a bad faith measure from President Obama who has already won this issue last month.
It's not the amount. It's the targeting and the timing. Do me a favor: Try flying this Friday, and tell me the affects on the FAA by the sequestration are nada while you wait around forever.
But you obviously didn't bother to read the PDF as evidenced by your post.
That said, 200 billion is a drop in the bucket. And the only taxes raised were on folks making in excess of 250K who can easily afford it. MOving their tax rate from 36% to 39% is nothing outlandish during a weak recovery from one of the most severe recessions on record. Austerity is. (Please don't give me the payroll tax expiration BS, heck, even the taxes "raised" on the rich this year were actually an expiration....Bush originally intended those cuts to sunset in 2010!) Bush KNEW that Democrats would have to raise taxes to competently run the Govt. but did not want to take the blame. What he did not foresee was that most Americans would eventually be in favor of it, as long as the "pain" was distributed fairly.
Do you want to see what happens when Republicans don't have Democrats around to raise taxes for them? Take a look at deep red, Republican dominated Wyoming. The Republicans had to be the "Bad Cop" and raise taxes so the Govt. could function, because they had no Democrats to pin that respnosibility on!
Raising taxes a little more on these folks with 3 to 1 spending cuts is hardly a radical proposal. The true radicals are in the House of Reps, and most of America knows that full well.
It's not the amount. It's the targeting and the timing. Do me a favor: Try flying this Friday, and tell me the affects on the FAA by the sequestration are nada while you wait around forever.
The impacts will not be felt Friday. They will take 1-2 months to even be experienced, if they are at all.
Quote:
But you obviously didn't bother to read the PDF as evidenced by your post.
Why do I need to read the PDF about sequestration impacts on RI to comment on the general sequestration impacts?
Quote:
hat said, 200 billion is a drop in the bucket. And the only taxes raised were on folks making in excess of 250K who can easily afford it. MOving their tax rate from 36% to 39% is nothing outlandish during a weak recovery from one of the most severe recessions on record. Austerity is.
I favored increasing taxes on the rich. In fact, I favored ending all of the Obama 2010 tax cuts for all income levels. When you have a $16T debt and trillions more in unfunded liabilities, no one deserves to have a tax break. I also believe we need to trim our entire tax code down to eliminate most deductions.
By the way, cuts of $85 billion are not austerity. Note that the federal budget is increased this year. Austerity is actual reductions in spending. That isn't happening with this plan.
Quote:
Bush KNEW that Democrats would have to raise taxes to competently run the Govt. but did not want to take the blame.
Please post evidence of this.
Quote:
What he did not foresee was that most Americans would eventually be in favor of it, as long as the "pain" was distributed fairly.
The pain is not distributed fairly when some classes still enjoy tax breaks or others receive net refunds/money from the government. Everyone should be paying into the government, even if it is $1.
Quote:
Do you want to see what happens when Republicans don't have Democrats around to raise taxes for them? Take a look at deep red, Republican dominated Wyoming. The Republicans had to be the "Bad Cop" and raise taxes so the Govt. could function, because they had no Democrats to pin that respnosibility on!
We could turn the tables and show you what a deep blue state like RI looks like - stubbornly high unemployment, out of control pensions, and ridiculous spending with continuing decline in social welfare.
Quote:
Raising taxes a little more on these folks with 3 to 1 spending cuts is hardly a radical proposal.
Please post a link to the Congressional bill introduced in the Senate and/or House with this proposal (I cannot view the link while at work).
The impacts will not be felt Friday. They will take 1-2 months to even be experienced, if they are at all.
Why do I need to read the PDF about sequestration impacts on RI to comment on the general sequestration impacts?
I favored increasing taxes on the rich. In fact, I favored ending all of the Obama 2010 tax cuts for all income levels. When you have a $16T debt and trillions more in unfunded liabilities, no one deserves to have a tax break. I also believe we need to trim our entire tax code down to eliminate most deductions.
By the way, cuts of $85 billion are not austerity. Note that the federal budget is increased this year. Austerity is actual reductions in spending. That isn't happening with this plan.
Please post evidence of this.
The pain is not distributed fairly when some classes still enjoy tax breaks or others receive net refunds/money from the government. Everyone should be paying into the government, even if it is $1.
We could turn the tables and show you what a deep blue state like RI looks like - stubbornly high unemployment, out of control pensions, and ridiculous spending with continuing decline in social welfare.
Please post a link to the Congressional bill introduced in the Senate and/or House with this proposal (I cannot view the link while at work).
The Administration and Congress have already set up much bigger cuts than the puny number you laid out.
Obama wants to do more. We can pretend that 39% of a billionaire's income, and 39% of someone making $50K a year's income are the same thing, but that would be very irresponsible, wouldn't it? And he has already agreed to make 3 spending cuts for every revenue increase. He has proposed closing loopholes and doing tax reform, Republicans were for this last year - what happened???
I agree with you that Rhode Island needs major municipal consolidations like yesterday, but that isn't the norm across solid Blue States. Rhode Island has its own unique problems, in part due to its size. When Warwick Republican Mayor Scott Avedisian tried to merge the E.G. and Warwick fire departments, for example, he quickly ran into trouble from the new Fire Chief. This isn't so much a political issue as it is a cultural one.
Believe it or not, we actually agree on taxes, you just fail to discern between sheer numbers and percentages.
We can pretend that 39% of a billionaire's income, and 39% of someone making $50K a year's income are the same thing, but that would be very irresponsible, wouldn't it?
Are you saying that the income tax rate for someone making $50,000 is 39%? That's not the current tax structure. I am confused.
Quote:
And he has already agreed to make 3 spending cuts for every revenue increase. He has proposed closing loopholes and doing tax reform, Republicans were for this last year - what happened???
Again, please present the link to legislation written by Obama and/or Democrats to put this into law. Because if it isn't a bill, then it's just talk. Plain and simple.
Quote:
When Warwick Republican Mayor Scott Avedisian tried to merge the E.G. and Warwick fire departments, for example, he quickly ran into trouble from the new Fire Chief. This isn't so much a political issue as it is a cultural one.
That specifically sounds like a political issue.
Quote:
Believe it or not, we actually agree on taxes, you just fail to discern between sheer numbers and percentages.
You are the one that is talking about percentages for taxation. I didn't. We can speak more about this, however, in a separate thread. Otherwise, I find it rather presumptuous of you to detail what I understand or don't understand.
Are you saying that the income tax rate for someone making $50,000 is 39%? That's not the current tax structure. I am confused.
You are indeed confused. My whole point is that the rates were raised to 39% for people making over $250K because those people don't feel it as much as 39% for someone making 50K. You don't move it to that level during times like these for a middle class individual. So when you say "the pain isn't being distributed fairly", you're being obtuse about that.
Senate Democrats proposed a $110 billion measure Thursday to put off mandatory across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect March 1.
The package made public by Senate Democratic leaders calls for replacing the so-called sequester cuts with a combination of increased tax revenue from millionaires, ending agriculture subsidies and reducing defense spending after the war in Afghanistan ends.
And what Obama offered was even more generous, but as usual, Boehner could not get his caucus in line. There is no point in the Senate creating bill after bill when they know full well it will by stymied in the House by the Tea Party.
By the way, we are not meandering off-topic here. These macro political dynamics affect Little Rhody as we are about to see.
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.
