In your world did the tax cuts originally expire when the dems had all the power? Just trying to figure out how it works in Lalaland.
In my world the tax cuts expired at the end of Dec...2010....
Last edited:
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How frequently are you watching FIFA World Cup 2026 matches?
Obamas deficit reduction plan
- Thread starter BBSA
- Start date
In your world did the tax cuts originally expire when the dems had all the power? Just trying to figure out how it works in Lalaland.
In my world the tax cuts expired at the end of Dec...2010....
In the real world the democrats could have passed their own legislation raising taxes. They did not have to wait for the tax cuts to expire and they had a fillibuster proof majority. There was nothing stopping them at all.
Yet they chose instead to wait knowing full well it would be blocked because the GOP had picked up seats. They did it for the same reason why they didn't introduce significant cuts to the budget. Political gain. They score points by claiming the GOP "don't want to tax the rich" and "They want to throw granny out into the snow with budget cuts".
They could have adressed both issues but they did not opting instead for political points scoring. American people suffer as a consequence.
They kinda did have to wait .. it was signed into law.... Im sure at the time they thought it was easier and faster to wait for the tax cuts to no longer be law and just not renew them instead of creating yet another bill to repeal the act (which would of course have been slowed to death by Republicans).
Last edited:
Both the Dem's and the Republicans are terrible liars, neither of them really wants to cut the budget, they make it seem like they are cutting the budget in order to pander those who are in favour of smaller government, but must of their cuts are fake, i.e. many "cuts" are simply reductions on future increases, I.E. Next year the healthcare budget won't increase by R100mil, it will be R80mil, thus resulting in a "20mil" cut.
Thats the type of thing that is going on in many cases. Also none of the programs which are actually bankrupting America, I.E the cause of the deficit such as the war and the huge social net (Social Security Obamacare etc.) are not even up for discussion at these "budget" talks. Then the Republicans come on air saying "Look we have reduced R30bn in spending" and when you asked what aint there its same lame ass program like save the wolves or the south western spotted moth or something that is cut. R30bn is also a drop in the ocean, it is not even laughable, as far as I know its like less than 0.3% of the budget. Woop woop! Pat yourselves on the back their lads.
Well, now they are thinking of downgrading the US government bond rating...god forbid the chinese decide to cut their losses and run...
Thats the type of thing that is going on in many cases. Also none of the programs which are actually bankrupting America, I.E the cause of the deficit such as the war and the huge social net (Social Security Obamacare etc.) are not even up for discussion at these "budget" talks. Then the Republicans come on air saying "Look we have reduced R30bn in spending" and when you asked what aint there its same lame ass program like save the wolves or the south western spotted moth or something that is cut. R30bn is also a drop in the ocean, it is not even laughable, as far as I know its like less than 0.3% of the budget. Woop woop! Pat yourselves on the back their lads.
Well, now they are thinking of downgrading the US government bond rating...god forbid the chinese decide to cut their losses and run...
GOP couldn't even slow it down when the Dems had a filibuster majority. It was clear the Dems would lose seats before the tax cuts expired. At the very least they're irresponsible and feckless. I suspect they were perfectly happy with keeping those tax cuts despite their claims to the contrary.
What they should have done is raise revenues before going on their spending spree. If they actually believe their claim that raising taxes on the rich would drastically improve revenues then that should have been their primary goal. Instead they decided to blow a trillion dollars on the Obamacare beast and hopefully raise taxes later to pay for it.
Ultimately the GOP gained from it. The dems haemorrhaged support letting the GOP back in blocking the raising of taxes, threatening Obamacare's funding and who knows in 2011 the supreme court might throw out Obamacare as unconstitutional.
The dems had the chance to drastically remake the U.S and confine the GOP to the wilderness for decades. Instead they blew it spectacularly in mere months. Every Democrat should be mad as hell at Obama, Pelosi and Ried.
True. They're reductions in increases not actual cuts. The GOP budget makes significantly more reductions in spending than the Dems.
Last edited:
What you suspect and what is reality are clearly two different things. Thats the way people justify the evil of the Republicans. "If everyone is doing is as bad as what I believe then what I do is ok". Its not like that. Despite the reality you have created, thats not true. There are bad people in the Dems, but most of them are interested in serving to create a liberal caring society. There are hardly any good people in the Reps and their siffness is so blatant Im completely confused as to how anyone with any sense of honor, decency or humanity can support them. Either they have the same morality as Republicans or they completely lack the intelligence to see how they are being used. Its so glaringly obvious there can be no other explanation.
Last edited:
It’s as if the Republican’s are deliberately sabotaging stuff because they privilege sniping and frustrating the Democrats more than hauling America out the dwang. Obama is on a losing wicket. His policies are better than anything the Reps. can come-up with and he has the added expense of pandering to Rep. interests to accomplish anything. His damage control is better than anything the Reps. can do, but America will go down despite his best efforts thanks to having to watch his back for Rep. knives. He will go down swinging on behalf of America but will be remembered by history in a negative light. Pity. He deserves better.
You see the problem with a democracy is that the poeple are represented by the various constituents.... imagine Obama could just do what he wanted, supreme authority, now wouldn't that bring paradise!?
It is ironic this democratic system which many applaud is the very reason why Obama is blocked, and it is interesting to note how criticial, albeit indirectly people are of this system when "their" man doesn't get his way. When they don't get the policies they want.
I mean who cares about the rights of others not to be oppressed by the majority right, the "people" elected Obama, so the "people" should get the rich's money gawd damn#&@! The people want the "rich" and the "productive" to pay for healthcare etc. and they had the majority, so they should have every right to take from these rich folk. They voted didn't they!
Of course your guy is always right. You are always right. Never wrong, no sireee! You think you can just run unprecedented deficits and NEVER pay it back. Yup. Can explain how that works nope! Bet you don't live on unprecedented debt, bet if you tried you would go bankrupt, but the state... it uses "magic" so it will never go bankrupt. Hell, when it is doen feeding off the rich, there is always the middle class and the poor to feed off next!
ALL HEIL MEIN FUHRER!
When will you guys get over yourselves?
You simply cannot run unprecendented deficits forever, it is NOT sustainable. Somehow has to pay for it. Having deficits NOW means your children or their children or their children WILL pay for it. Someone has to sooner or later.
You guys are happy for this unsustainable system as long as the benefits are in your favour. For many Republicans it is war (What has become of the Republican Party, they used to be the ones AGAINST Imperialism and Nation building) and for many Dems it is the social security net.
What if a guy came to power, dropped taxes, stopped the war and ended social security. Well the mainstream Republicans won't get what they wanted, so they will be piss**. The Dem's won't get what they wanted, so they will be piss**.
But guess what. That would be the right thing to do. Sometimes the right thing is not voting for what we want (Be it war or Obamacare), but voting for someone who won't pander to the majority, who actually stands for something. Voting for a person who doesn't think power and taxation and telling people how to breathe what they should learn in schools, what religion they should be etc. Maybe voting for THAT person, someone who believes in power of the INDIVIDUAL, who believes in individual freedom, individual liberty and putting chains on the state.
Hey maybe you won't get some rich guy to pay for your surgery (@ Dems), or you won't get some poor kid to go kill some people oversees for you (@ Repubs), but maybe thats what the world really needs.
PS: I want a Lambo, now all I need to do is vote for a politician who is willing to give me one. And if this miracle somehow comes true...you know what is to blame right... the democratic system. That's all this is. Democracy at work. You vote for guys to give you what you want, well then if you won't let me "succeed" then I'll vote for someone I want. Whoever is better at taking from the other guy wins!
Last edited:
Fazda
Honorary Master
I just made this bigger, in case Alan missed it the first time.
Obama campaigned on ‘change’. The Republicans bang on about ‘freedom’ and ‘risk taking’ claiming that Obama’s efforts will restrict these. On the contrary, the system as it exists now (which the Reps. want to keep) restricts freedom and risk taking. Risk taking by American citizens is what the US needs to pull itself from the dwang. The Reps. are shooting this down for petty carpet-bagging motives and to preserve the wealth of the WASP power elite. When the Republicans snipe at the Democrats they generally use Obama’s health reforms. “Creeping socialism” they trumpet. “An erosion of risk taking and freedom of the Great American Way”. I think education should also be this way. Imagine the freedom and enhanced risk taking of individuals if the burdens of health and education are removed. The freedom to take risks. Not being trapped into having to kow-tow to a boss because you can’t afford to lose your job (health & schooling). Not having to laugh at his jokes if they aren’t funny. Not having to brown-nose and being able to stand on principle. You have the **freedom** to take risks because you can quit if things become intolerable (remember, an off-balance boss is a good boss). I would imagine that if the health and schooling burdens are carried by the state that would raise the happiness quotient of citizens by an order of magnitude. For example (horrors! Socialism!). Lift the burden of health care and education from the citizen (socialism), turn down the money-grubbing volume in American (free-market capitalist) societies – the person with the most toys when they die, wins. We all know that big bux rule <gag>. Socialistic’ free medical care and education without the outraged squealing from a society who worships the $? Profits being reduced because of a higher tax obligation? An end to the obsessive deification of money? Blasphemy! The Rep. WASPS call as they worship at the alter of Mammon.
Those ‘unprecedented deficits’ are there because Obama had to bend himself into pretzel shapes and spend an awful lot of money satisfying Rep. whining about change. “It’s all too risky and we will lose our status quo advantages and be forced not to screw-over the US citizen. Where will our wealth come from then.”
You're one of those nuts who thinks "freedom" is getting what you want and totally ignores the fact that someone else is "not free", not free to not be your slave, not free to keep the fruits of their labour, not free to be left alone etc.
But let's try address your response properly;
1 - Obama campaigned on "change". Some of the changes he campaigned on, I agree with, some of them not. The ones I agree with (End the war, end patriot act etc.) he has not delivered, in fact he has done the opposite. He is a nobel peace prize winning warmonger. Obama's word, means nothing to me. He is a liar and a con-man in my opinion. He has lied to and conned America and the international world as far as I am concerned. And as for "change", you see I am smart enough to recognise that "change" is not necessarily a good thing. If change means restricting individual freedom's, then "change" is bad, "change" is wrong. So let's forget the "propaganda" and the "marketing" jargon used for campaigns and focus on policy and voting record. In that regard, Obama stinks.
2 - "Risk taking" - Wow. Where to begin. "Risk taking" and speculation from a marketing sense (Housing bubble) is what got us into this economic mess, and this came from lax of lending standards and cheap credit (Thanks FED reserve!). "You need to save to invest, don't use the printing press." - Keynes vs Hayek Rap video.
What America needs, is to knuckle down. Start working, start rebuilding their savings, start with the foundation for a healthy financial policy (Balance the budget for crying out loud). Good ol' fashion common sense really. What America does not need is someone telling them to try the casinos.
3 - Your quant but moronic notion of freedom. I quote "Imagine the freedom and enhanced risk taking of individuals if the burdens of health and education are removed. The freedom to take risks. Not being trapped into having to kow-tow to a boss because you can’t afford to lose your job (health & schooling)."
I have one question which would refute this idiotic idea. Can everyone stop working tomorrow and have money/healthcare/education? That was rhetorical. The answer is no. The answer is someone has to work to provide these things. Thus your argument revolves around as long as "someone else" carries the burden of supporting you financially, you are free not to have to work. Yes that is correct. Pity the poor fool who has to be forced to support you though, he of course won't have the same freedoms you enjoy (And here I thought all socialists were about equality, "We are all equals. Some more so than others," or something to that effect, thanks George.)
The "great american way" was that the oppertunity was there for everyone to work hard and succeed. Basically if you worked hard, you could succeed in life. Not if you didn't work somene else would work for you.
As for your feelings on public education. I was publically educated at a really good public institution... I don't think I would send my kids to a public school. I want "educators" in charge of my kids education, not beaurocrats. Did you know in 1990 there was an all black private school in Philly which charged $1750 per year to privately educate kids (Who came from mostly the lower middle class/poor) and they got a top notch education. Did you know at the time this school was doing this, it cost the state of Philadelphia on average $5000 to educate a child in the public system (Which produced poorer students). Any idiot would say, close the public schools and use the money to pay to privately educate these kids. You get a better education for less, win-win right? But apparently people like you laud the public education system. Have you seen many of our public schools? Most of the teachers at my school that taught me left and now teach in private schools. They get paid better, it is a better environment and they get to do what they love. Educate and not have to deal with the state beauocracy. You should look up the story of Jaime Escalante (From Stand and Deliver)... that should forever convince you of the stuff-up that is government handled education.
4 - Then you talk about happiness quotient. Yes, I imagine the rich slave owners back in the day, who were free from the burden's of gasp* "work", I imagine they were happy. (Just don't mention the slaves...)
The point is yes YOU might be happy because YOU feel that YOU benefit. The same way I would be very happy if the state bought me a Lambo! Unfortunately, that Lambo would have been paid for on the back of others. Someone paid for it! That person did not have a choice to "opt" out. Actually they did, the choice was kidnapping and jail or pay-up. They simply decided that paying up is preferable to jail, I don't think that makes them happy campers. But who caresa about "their" feelings. My feelings are the only ones that matters. MY policies and what I want is what matters. If MY posse in the government has to raise YOUR taxes to pay for what I want then SO BE IT. Who cares about your rights...not me.
"Happiness quotient"... lol. "Happiness" can now be quantitatively measured by Pali and friends! As long as the overall "happiness quotient" is up, society is better off! I almost wish utilitarianism was a crime. Then you would be jailed for that idea.
5 - ROFL! Obama and the social net has nothing to do with the deficits? Bud you live in a dream world. The two biggest leaches of the budget is "Health and Human Services (Close to 900bn I think) and the department of defense (over 700bn in 2010). That is what half of the budget put together. The next biggest portion of the budget is the interest on debt accumulated. This of course rising faster and faster, the more debt (Each yearly deficit) that is accumulated the more interest you need, the less money there is for other things.
Net worth of the so called "rich" of the US is what 1.3trillion? You could take EVERY cent now, every single penny, and it would do squat. It wouldn't even cover this years deficit. What about next year... and the year after that.
But don't worry, its your grand kids problem and the rich people, not yours, no siree!
PS: On a more serious note, it saddens me the Orwellian nature of Palimino's argument. The very fact that "socialism" is somehow now connected with the idea of freedom. I certainly acknowledge that without hand-outs, if we are to survive we have no choice to work. That is not a reality of capitalism or socialism or any other ideological "ism". That is the reality of the world. Lion's got to eat, so they must hunt. For you to eat, someone must provide you with food. For you to get healthcare, someone must provide.
Imagine, hypothetically, a society where everyone worked and everyone could afford the basics themselves. Housing, education, food and healthcare. Would we be calling for massive socialism? No. Now, you people might argue this is a utopian dream. No society has ever had this. Well there has never been a society that is free from rape and murder either, that does not mean the desire for such a society is wrong or absurd.
The question is how to we get from here, to there, our idea of the ideal society. My point is, getting people addicted to the idea that others should provide for them, no matter who those others are, is wrong and counter-productive. We want to send the message that we should not leach of others, and we want to give people the best oppertunities to do this. We want "rules" that make this easy. Which means LESS government, less beauocracy, less costs on doing business and less intervention by the state into the affairs of people.
That is freedom.
Freedom is NOT slavery.
The point is yes YOU might be happy because YOU feel that YOU benefit. The same way I would be very happy if the state bought me a Lambo! Unfortunately, that Lambo would have been paid for on the back of others. Someone paid for it! That person did not have a choice to "opt" out. Actually they did, the choice was kidnapping and jail or pay-up. They simply decided that paying up is preferable to jail, I don't think that makes them happy campers. But who caresa about "their" feelings. My feelings are the only ones that matters. MY policies and what I want is what matters. If MY posse in the government has to raise YOUR taxes to pay for what I want then SO BE IT. Who cares about your rights...not me.
"Happiness quotient"... lol. "Happiness" can now be quantitatively measured by Pali and friends! As long as the overall "happiness quotient" is up, society is better off! I almost wish utilitarianism was a crime. Then you would be jailed for that idea.
5 - ROFL! Obama and the social net has nothing to do with the deficits? Bud you live in a dream world. The two biggest leaches of the budget is "Health and Human Services (Close to 900bn I think) and the department of defense (over 700bn in 2010). That is what half of the budget put together. The next biggest portion of the budget is the interest on debt accumulated. This of course rising faster and faster, the more debt (Each yearly deficit) that is accumulated the more interest you need, the less money there is for other things.
Net worth of the so called "rich" of the US is what 1.3trillion? You could take EVERY cent now, every single penny, and it would do squat. It wouldn't even cover this years deficit. What about next year... and the year after that.
But don't worry, its your grand kids problem and the rich people, not yours, no siree!
PS: On a more serious note, it saddens me the Orwellian nature of Palimino's argument. The very fact that "socialism" is somehow now connected with the idea of freedom. I certainly acknowledge that without hand-outs, if we are to survive we have no choice to work. That is not a reality of capitalism or socialism or any other ideological "ism". That is the reality of the world. Lion's got to eat, so they must hunt. For you to eat, someone must provide you with food. For you to get healthcare, someone must provide.
Imagine, hypothetically, a society where everyone worked and everyone could afford the basics themselves. Housing, education, food and healthcare. Would we be calling for massive socialism? No. Now, you people might argue this is a utopian dream. No society has ever had this. Well there has never been a society that is free from rape and murder either, that does not mean the desire for such a society is wrong or absurd.
The question is how to we get from here, to there, our idea of the ideal society. My point is, getting people addicted to the idea that others should provide for them, no matter who those others are, is wrong and counter-productive. We want to send the message that we should not leach of others, and we want to give people the best oppertunities to do this. We want "rules" that make this easy. Which means LESS government, less beauocracy, less costs on doing business and less intervention by the state into the affairs of people.
That is freedom.
Freedom is NOT slavery.
Last edited:
Any evidence this really happens, as opposed to money making schemes that produce additional wealth for the wealthy without any real benefit in jobs or the economy? How is this different to Reagan's voodoo economics?
They're consumers and will be presumed to end up spending that extra money thereby actually stimulating the economy.
I think Robert's just worried he is going to have pay more tax on the money he makes pretending to be a financial guru.
There is another explanation, which I suspect is correct. There is no way Obama would have handed the Republicans a bludgeon to beat him with (which is what they’re doing). Change would have been relatively easy (without Rep. interference) and immensely popular – a good strategy to garner votes.
However, once he became president he became aware of information that is classified ‘For the President’s eyes only’ and realized that radical ‘change’ (the status quo had been embedded for too long) would have ripple effects on a multitude of issues affecting security, the economy, etc. And he couldn’t say why he was backtracking (classified). A rock and a hard place.
Your #2 is just vapouring. You say nothing. “Risk taking" - Wow. Where to begin. " is not an answer.
No sh*t, Sherlock. I didn’t know that.
Of course they can’t! UNDER ANY DISPENSATION! Society requires people to work (duh). You really have to raise the bar on your rhetoric.
The "great American way" and great Americans existed in your parent’s and grandparent’s time. No longer.
Cuban education seems to be doing OK (much better than the US). Their health system as well. Their ‘happiness quotient’ is higher. Under a socialist system.This in spite of everything America could do to them. 1 + 1 = 2?
A simple google of ‘happiness quotient’ returned ½ a million results in 0.16 of a second. Try it.
Right, so he couldn't deliver. Doesn't deserve a 2nd term. Simple as that.
My point was that your idea of freedom is fundementally flawed. The right to freedom should apply to everyone. Everyone cannot live off nothing, thus everyone cannot be "free" under your idea at the same time.
Ok. Your point? The past America was better? Their ideals were better? Or worse? If the past ideals are to be emulated, then we need to have policies that encourage that thinking. If they are not to be emulated then we need policies that encourage the opposite.
You watch to much Michael Moore. Yuri Maltsev a Russian defector who now teaches economics in the US, had a friend from Cuba come give his students a lecture about communism in Cuba. Back in the day of the Soviet Union, they would bring prople from Cuba to educate them in communist ways. This how he met his friend initially. Now he teaches in the US. One of his students obviously watched Sicko, and said to his friend, "but Cuban's have great healthcare."
His friends response was, "Yes, but it could be better. It would be be better if we had ambulances, and clinics, doctors and medicine." His point was the Sicko did not show the reality of Cuban healthcare. Their healthcare system is terrible for the ordinary man. It is elitest, if you are a privilaged member of the party you do receive the best treatment. In leaving the hall/classroom, this Cuban remarked to Yuri in jest, "You know what we do if we need healthcare in Cuba, we swim to Miami as fast as possible."
You think the Cuban public education system is more succesful than America? Really? Forced indoctrination in Marxian ideology?
Wow. Maybe their public education system is better than the American's, can their private education system compare, oh wait, they don't have one. I think if you compare what education can be when it is privatised, you'll find the type of education standards we want for our kids and we want to emulate, and I think you'll find they are far higher than the forced marxian based Cuban brainwashing/education system.
A simple google of ‘happiness quotient’ returned ½ a million results in 0.16 of a second. Try it.[/QUOTE]
My anecdote:
An American women had breathing problems. The medicine in America cost hundreds of $. Over the years she sold her house to survive (she wasn’t rich). She found that the same medication in Cuba costs 23 cents. She now imports it by the boxful. Cheaper.
Yes. This is not difficult to establish. Google is your friend.
Fazda
Honorary Master
It is totally beyond my comprehension why ANYONE would find healthcare terrible!! :wtf:
I remember seeing this. Michael Moore edits his movies to show his POV only.
How about going to Cuba bud. As I said, this Cuban firend of Yuri's joked that if you wanted healthcare in Cuba, you swim to Miami. Try asking an ordinary Cuban instead of a wealthy American millionaire filmmaker with a vested interest.
I did goog the Cuban education system. You are forcefully indoctrinated in Marxist ideology.
No thanks.
Fazda
Honorary Master
So because Michael Moore's POV differs from yours, he is obviously wrong...right?
He is a film maker, who only uses non-unionised people and treats them like trash to promote a socialist message that makes him rich.
The point is he is biased and doesn't live in Cuba, thus he is not the best person to educate you about Cuban healthcare.
Last edited: