America's Cold Civil War

[F-Sharp]

Today from my favorite conservative...

"The Republican refusal to countenance any way to raise revenues to tackle the massive debt incurred largely on their watch and from a recession which started under Obama's predecessor makes one thing clear. They are not a political party in government; they are a radical faction that refuses to participate meaningfully in the give and take the Founders firmly believed should be at the center of American government. They are not conservatives in this sense. They are anarchists."

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....civil-war.html

[DTorrchia]

How about a President that can't put forth ANY plan at all when it comes to dealing with our national deficit? The Republicans have put forth THREE, count them, 1,2,3 plans all of which have been outright rejected by the Democrats and Harry Reid called "dead on arrival". I suppose calling a plan "dead on arrival" and refusing to vote on any proposed plan the Republicans present is "meaningful participation" on the Democrats' part?
The fact is our system is broken. Completely. Both parties have been and continue to be out only for their own self interests and could care less about the average American. There is only one course of action that will change this. Until the American people take back the powers granted to them by the Constitution no meaningful change will take place.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

How about a President that can't put forth ANY plan at all when it comes to dealing with our national deficit? The Republicans have put forth THREE, count them, 1,2,3 plans all of which have been outright rejected by the Democrats and Harry Reid called "dead on arrival". I suppose calling a plan "dead on arrival" and refusing to vote on any proposed plan the Republicans present is "meaningful participation" on the Democrats' part?
The fact is our system is broken. Completely. Both parties have been and continue to be out only for their own self interests and could care less about the average American. There is only one course of action that will change this. Until the American people take back the powers granted to them by the Constitution no meaningful change will take place.

First and foremost, now is not the time to be putting forth any plans to deal with the deficit. Budget appropriations is the proper time and place to be doing this, not when America is on the verge of defaulting on it's debts. Congress holds the purse strings, not the President. Second, none of the GOP "plans" will (a). keep us from loosing our AAA credit rating, and (b). will do NOTHING to lower our National debt, not even by one single penny. Fourth, the first Boehner plan was nothing more than a ruse, an effort to prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2013 without a 2/3rds super-majority vote. The other two plans put forth are nothing more than an effort to destroy our economy in hopes of preventing Obama from being elected. Mainly because they know they can't beat him at the polls in a legitimate campaign.

Our system is not broken. It's simply been overrun with math-challenged extemists. The deficit/debt problem can and will only be solved by increased revenue, PERIOD. The system will run it's due course as you will see next year as many of the folks who voted in these Tea Bagger tax dodging unpatriotic extemists will finally start to come to their senses and realize what a horrible mistake they made. We will all of course be paying billions of dollars in higher interest and taxes and will continue to increase our National debt as a cost for that mistake over the next few decades, but ultimately we get the government we deserve.

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

First and foremost, now is not the time to be putting forth any plans to deal with the deficit. Budget appropriations is the proper time and place to be doing this, not when America is on the verge of defaulting on it's debts. Congress holds the purse strings, not the President. Second, none of the GOP "plans" will (a). keep us from loosing our AAA credit rating, and (b). will do NOTHING to lower our National debt, not even by one single penny. Fourth, the first Boehner plan was nothing more than a ruse, an effort to prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2013 without a 2/3rds super-majority vote. The other two plans put forth are nothing more than an effort to destroy our economy in hopes of preventing Obama from being elected. Mainly because they know they can't beat him at the polls in a legitimate campaign.

Our system is not broken. It's simply been overrun with math-challenged extemists. The deficit/debt problem can and will only be solved by increased revenue, PERIOD. The system will run it's due course as you will see next year as many of the folks who voted in these Tea Bagger tax dodging unpatriotic extemists will finally start to come to their senses and realize what a horrible mistake they made. We will all of course be paying billions of dollars in higher interest and taxes and will continue to increase our National debt as a cost for that mistake over the next few decades, but ultimately we get the government we deserve.

What was your third point?

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

First and foremost, now is not the time to be putting forth any plans to deal with the deficit. Budget appropriations is the proper time and place to be doing this, not when America is on the verge of defaulting on it's debts. Congress holds the purse strings, not the President. Second, none of the GOP "plans" will (a). keep us from loosing our AAA credit rating, and (b). will do NOTHING to lower our National debt, not even by one single penny. Fourth, the first Boehner plan was nothing more than a ruse, an effort to prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2013 without a 2/3rds super-majority vote. The other two plans put forth are nothing more than an effort to destroy our economy in hopes of preventing Obama from being elected. Mainly because they know they can't beat him at the polls in a legitimate campaign.

Our system is not broken. It's simply been overrun with math-challenged extemists. The deficit/debt problem can and will only be solved by increased revenue, PERIOD. The system will run it's due course as you will see next year as many of the folks who voted in these Tea Bagger tax dodging unpatriotic extemists will finally start to come to their senses and realize what a horrible mistake they made. We will all of course be paying billions of dollars in higher interest and taxes and will continue to increase our National debt as a cost for that mistake over the next few decades, but ultimately we get the government we deserve.

As I pointed out in my post, BOTH parties are to blame. Your arguments are stale and typical. The old line that Obama "inherited" this mess doesn't wash anymore. No one told him to get us involved in Libya. How many millions has that cost us? No one told him to increase spending.
Yes the system IS broken. Over 60 years ago a Democrat introduced Social Security. For the last 30 years the Government has taken money out of MY paycheck under the guise that it would supplement my retirement. Now they want to say "Ooops" no more money, sorry, and label Social Security an "entitlement". It's not an "entitlement" if I paid for it. That's robbery, plain and simple. Let's see, which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? The Democratically Controlled Congress at the time.
Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Again, the Democrats.
Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote.
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
Answer: President Jimmy Carter, Democrat.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
You tell me the system's not broken? Take a long look around my friend.

Anytime you want to debate the state of our military, our education system (Try watching the documentary "Waiting on Superman" to see what teachers unions have done to our education system), and let's not even get started on the mortgage crisis that helped lead to the economical disaster. Who's bright idea was it to push forth high risk mortgages on low income families that couldn't afford them? Bill Clinton ring a bell?

So please you can take that nonsense about how it's "tea baggers" fault somewhere else.

It certainly wasn't tea party members that were in bed with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. No, it was people like Democrat Barney Frank and his kind.
America will learn the hard way the way Europe is starting to learn slowly but surely. When you try to appease all, when a country stands for nothing, then it will fall for anything. And we ARE heading for a fall my friend.

[rCoder]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Our system is not broken. It's simply been overrun with math-challenged extemists. The deficit/debt problem can and will only be solved by increased revenue, PERIOD.

Gong!

The only way to solve the excessive debt is to reduce real spending, PERIOD. Not the phony cuts to the baseline budget (the one that has over $9 trillion in spending increases for the next 10 years), then bitch and moan about "cutting" $2 trillion. I know, I know, it's much harder to bitch and moan about stealing only an additional $7 trillion from all the peasants.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by rCoder

Gong!

The only way to solve the excessive debt is to reduce real spending, PERIOD. Not the phony cuts to the baseline budget (the one that has over $9 trillion in spending increases for the next 10 years), then bitch and moan about "cutting" $2 trillion. I know, I know, it's much harder to bitch and moan about stealing only an additional $7 trillion from all the peasants.

What do you consider "real spending" to be? I've paid in to Social Security and Medicare for over 30 years now. Bet you don't think of tax cuts as spending right?

We're $1.4 trillion a year in the hole at the moment. That represents 40% + interest of our yearly budget. Remember, we had the very same programs under Clinton bought and paid for with surplus to spare, so you tell me what the issue really is.

I know you'd be perfectly happy with cutting Social Security, Medicare and our defense budget entirely, but that's not anywhere near realistic. 60 million people rely on Social Security and another 50 million on Medicare. You gonna say fuck you to 100 million people or you gonna raise taxes a measly 4%?

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

As I pointed out in my post, BOTH parties are to blame. Your arguments are stale and typical. The old line that Obama "inherited" this mess doesn't wash anymore. No one told him to get us involved in Libya. How many millions has that cost us? No one told him to increase spending.

It only "doesn't wash anymore" for those such as yourself who choose to ignore reallity. The facts are simple. Our National debt stands at $14.2 trillion give or take. $9.8 trillion of that total can be directly accounted for through tax cuts, two foriegn wars, corporate welfare and stimulus spent on Republican watch. The remaining $3.4 trillion can be directly attributed to Dems with a good portion under Obama in the form of stimulus spending and the continuation of those wars. Now, I want you to tell me EXACTLY where Obama increased spending, and what was that money spent on?

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Yes the system IS broken. Over 60 years ago a Democrat introduced Social Security. For the last 30 years the Government has taken money out of MY paycheck under the guise that it would supplement my retirement. Now they want to say "Ooops" no more money, sorry, and label Social Security an "entitlement". It's not an "entitlement" if I paid for it. That's robbery, plain and simple. Let's see, which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? The Democratically Controlled Congress at the time.

This is bullshit, plain and simple. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). As it stands now, without raising the $106,800 cap we will have to reduce payouts by 25% after 2023. That is of course, unless we raise the cap in a more equally distibuted fashion. Raise the cap making higher income earners paying their fair share and the problem is solved entirely. See the "internet myths" pages below for more details. This is also a good read:

http://robertreich.org/post/7940507194

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Again, the Democrats.
Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote.
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
Answer: President Jimmy Carter, Democrat.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
You tell me the system's not broken? Take a long look around my friend.

There are all pretty easy to debunk, and according to the source, you're wrong on all counts. I think I am most fond of your last piece of nonsense about immigrants, you at least gave me a good late night laugh.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Anyone else find it interesting that the SSA has a direct response to each and every accusation made here? On a page called Internet Myths no less.

I do agree with one thing you said. We are heading for fall, at least so long as we allow this small minority of Tea Party extremists who can't do simple math dictate what are economic policies are going to be. Not to worry friend, after the events of the past few days most of them will be gone in the next election cycle.

[rCoder]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

I know you'd be perfectly happy with cutting Social Security, Medicare and our defense budget entirely, but that's not anywhere near realistic. 60 million people rely on Social Security and another 50 million on Medicare. You gonna say fuck you to 100 million people or you gonna raise taxes a measly 4%?

You do know that the federal government accepts donations, right? So why don't you just donate an extra 4% this year? No one is threatening to imprison or shoot you if you don't.

Or better yet, why not just give them everything you make and own. Then let Obama send you your "fair share" to live on? Yes, that's the answer.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by rCoder

You do know that the federal government accepts donations, right? So why don't you just donate an extra 4% this year? No one is threatening to imprison or shoot you if you don't.

Or better yet, why not just give them everything you make and own. Then let Obama send you your "fair share" to live on? Yes, that's the answer.

I guess that's the difference between you, me, the Tea Party and corporations who don't pay Federal taxes. You're perfectly fine voting for and supporting the GOP while they are in office racking up this ridiculous debt and picking fights around the globe. But the very minute they're no longer in control you start kicking and screaming about taxes and debt as if you didn't know anything about it before they lost power. I'm not happy about it, but I have fully expected to have my taxes increased the very minute GWB took office and starting spendng Clinton's savings account. If you're truly not happy about paying higher tax rates, then you and the Tea Party should strongly consider writing your congressen about their economic policies and starting next year, stop voting against your own economic interests next election. Entitlements are not going away Coder, not ever. Might as well get that ridiculous idea out of your head now and come join the rest of us in the real world.

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

corporations who don't pay Federal taxes.

Like for example; GE whose CEO Jeff Immelt sits on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory board

The top tax bracket for U.S. corporations stands at 35 percent, one of the highest rates in the world. So how is it possible that a giant of American business, General Electric, paid nothing in federal taxes last year, even as it made billions in profit? And should the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, be advising the president on business?

Except for maybe Google, no company has been closer and more in synch with the Obama administration than General Electric.

First, there’s the policy overlap: Obama wants cap-and-trade, GE wants cap-and-trade. Obama subsidizes embryonic stem-cell research, GE launches an embryonic stem-cell business. Obama calls for rail subsidies GE hires Linda Daschle as a rail lobbyist. Obama gives a speech, GE employee Chris Matthews feels a thrill up his leg. I could go on.

And the GE export of jobs issue; http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...unit-to-china/

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

First and foremost, now is not the time to be putting forth any plans to deal with the deficit. Budget appropriations is the proper time and place to be doing this, not when America is on the verge of defaulting on it's debts.

So how is that 2010/11 budget by the Pelosi led congress coming along?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104

"House Democrats will not pass a budget blueprint in 2010, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) will confirm in a speech on Tuesday." (06/22/10)

[DTorrchia]

F-Sharp, are you insinuating that the government has NOT been putting IOU's into the Social Security Fund and spending money from the Social Security Fund for general fund related expenditures? If so then you must be smarter than all the Politicians who have admitted that this has been going on for over two decades now.
I'm glad you find humor in illegal immigrants receiving Social Security benefits.
According to the Social Security Administrations own website which you linked, illegal immigrants can and do qualify for SSI. If you find that humorous then you're in the minority, I can assure you.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...LE2/budget.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...ited_States%29

As far as paying more taxes.....I'm incorporated and I can assure you I pay my fair share of taxes both on my personal income and on my Corporation. Do I get a slightly better tax rate? Yes I do. I'm also paying multiple taxes and employee benefits.
I'd be all for a tax hike as soon as the following happens:
1. There's an immediate end to lifetime retirement benefits for single term Congressmen and Senators
2. All money that was spent from the Social Security fund for non Social Security related expenditures is replaced.
3. All the money from TARP 1&2 has been repaid to the government
4. The U.S. ends all financial support for the current Libya debacle.

Now, there's a ton more of waste I'd like to see eliminated but if they simply started with the above 4 things I wouldn't scream too loudly if there as a tax increase. What I cannot and will not tolerate is what the Democrats always seem to want which is never ending tax increases to justify never ending spending increases. At some point and time the spending has to be controlled. I can't go out and run up a million dollars in debt. I can but there will be severe consequences if I do so. My credit rating will suffer, my business will suffer and my family will suffer. Therefor I have to CONTROL my spending. Why should Washington NOT be forced to cut spending BEFORE we agree to tax increases. Seems perfectly rational to me.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

F-Sharp, are you insinuating that the government has NOT been putting IOU's into the Social Security Fund and spending money from the Social Security Fund for general fund related expenditures? If so then you must be smarter than all the Politicians who have admitted that this has been going on for over two decades now.
I'm glad you find humor in illegal immigrants receiving Social Security benefits.

I'm not insinuating one single damn thing, I am simply sharing facts. Easily obtainable facts at that. If you bothered to read the links I posted or did just a little fact gathering you would know that there is no such thing as a "Social Security Fund". Since 1969 the government has operated on a unified budget. You care to point out one single politician to me who says this isn't true? I'm glad you're glad I find humor in such ridiculous statements as illegals receiving Social Security. It's complete nonsense. No Social Security benefits can legally be paid to illegal immigrants. Not now, not ever! This is simply beyond intelligent dispute and I won't waste any more of my time addressing it.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/soc...al-immigrants/

http://www.factcheck.org/article447.html

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

4. The U.S. ends all financial support for the current Libya debacle.

Interesting. You make absolutely no mention of the Iraq or Afghanistan "debacles" that have cost far more in both money and lives. I am not convinced you have your priorities straight Sir.

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

What I cannot and will not tolerate is what the Democrats always seem to want which is never ending tax increases to justify never ending spending increases.

This statement has no basis in fact and makes absolutely no sense. Ever bothered to look at a historical tax rate chart or compare spending by party in the last 50 years or so? You care to explain to me where Democrats have wanted "never ending tax increases" to justify spending they inacted? I challenge you to do so!

In a nutshell it went something like this:

Reagan lowered the marginal tax rate to 38.5% in 1987 and again down to 28% in 1988. Those tax cuts ultimately increased our debt to the tune of about 20% debt/gdp, or you can call it $2 trillion if you prefer. His economic policies also lead to a steep rise in inflation and ultimately a recession.

GHWB then has to raise that rate to 31% to make up some of that deficit and cost of inflation. (*Note to self, GWHB raised taxes to cover Republican spending, GWHB was not a Democrat!) Unfortunately his Budget Enforcement Act is not enough when you throw the end of the Cold War and a war with Iraq in to the mix. GWHB ultimately raised our debt/gpd by another 13%, or $1.5 trillion. "Read my lips, no new taxes", I heard him state ever so firmly on my television screen back in 1988.

So that brings us to 1993 and along comes Clinton sitting on a National debt of $4.6 trillion created mostly by our two former wealth-trickling-voodoo-economic presidents. Clinton was the only President since Carter (*Note to self, Carter also a Democrat) to reduce our National debt. Yes, Clinton did indeed raise the marginal tax rate to 39.6%, and guess what it worked. Not only did we enjoy record economic gains, but also record job growth.

Let's repeat that for DTorrchia and the other slow kids at the back of the room. Carter and Clinton are the only two Presidents that have actually reduced our National debt since 1977. Both Democrats. I won't even go in to the spending enacted during Bush Jr's terms as you've wasted enough of my time already. We'll reserve the Obama discussion for when his terms are over in 2016, and I will predict for you here that the Bush tax cuts will be left to expire in 2013 and we will have a reduction in our National debt by the time his two terms are finished.

Perhaps you care to revise your ridiculous statement, or at very least make an attempt to provide some factual data to support it?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

So how is that 2010/11 budget by the Pelosi led congress coming along?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104

"House Democrats will not pass a budget blueprint in 2010, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) will confirm in a speech on Tuesday." (06/22/10)

Apparently the same way it did it in GOP-led houses in 1998, 2004 and 2006 according to your link. Signed, sealed and delivered by Obama on April 15, 2011. Your point here is what Billy?

It make also be a good time to make mention that the Democrats requested a debt ceiling increase as part of that budget that was shot down by the House during appropriations. It was also voted down once again as a seperate measure in May of this year. My point being is that our current House have had more than ample opportunity to prevent this current crisis and have completely failed to do so.