The Fiscal Cliff

[Ransom Stoddard]

Originally Posted by Charleston

This would make sense if the media were "fair and balanced". The Republican House passed budgets and other bills that Harry Reid wouldn't even bring up for a vote. Yet it was the Republicans who were labeled "obstructionists" by the President and his minions. And this president's idea of compromise was displayed early in his first term - "I won". It's either his way or the highway. (I'm also not sure why we need more federal education spending, but I get the point).

I'd like to get a look at those, do you have the numbers of the bills or some links to be able to find them?

[illini80]

Originally Posted by Ransom Stoddard

I expect it to stop when the voting public figures out that the people we elect (and pay) to represent us are--in general--a bunch of self-serving nitwits who rarely back up their promises with actions.

And I mentioned neither Obama nor Boehner, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to interject them.

Never. Gonna. Happen.

My expectation is that looking over the cliff is to frightening, so logically we choose to climb higher. I don't think for a second there will be any real progress made. Smoke and mirror cuts that don't take effect until after the next election. Minor increases in some fees/taxes that will not make a dent in the deficit.

[Charleston]

Originally Posted by Ransom Stoddard

I'd like to get a look at those, do you have the numbers of the bills or some links to be able to find them?

No, I don't have any links; I'm just going by memory. I was wrong on the Ryan budget bill, though, as that was voted on and defeated in the Senate. I distinctly remember reading about bills that were passed in the House that Reid wouldn't even bring up for a vote, though. In fairness to him, he has been pretty busy lately, slandering Mitt Romney about his taxes and generally using the Senate floor for the people's business.

[Clete1]

Tax cuts to fund more wars, entitlements, and social programs. Win-win all the way around.

[bert]

My bet is they vote on a deal on taxes right after Jan 1 so they can say they cut taxes instead of raising them. I bet payroll taxes go up, a bunch of deductions get cut or taken out (home mortgage especially) and total deductions get capped for high incomes. I bet the top tax rate goes up but not all the way to 39. Cap gains don't go over 20. Corporate deductions are cut but the rate goes down.

I bet the spending deal is mostly a cap on spending in later years that doesn't say what's going to get cut. They give back most of the military cuts but get rid of earmarks and cut pensions and farm subsidies.

[gibb52]

They need to raise the Soc Sec tax back up to 12.4%. Stupid idea to cut it to begin with. The earnings ceiling on SS taxes will be raised. Medicare taxes will need to rise, somewhere in the 4-4.5% neighborhood. I could see the R's make a deal to stand their ground on taxes but agree to eliminate some deductions among some other tweaks, making taxes go up without "raising taxes".

None of that will help much without massive spending cuts, most of it needs to come from the military budget. We outspend the Iranians 10 to 1. If we can't cut that to 6 to 1 without being scared to death of them that doesn't say much for us. Defense, Medicare and SS are the 3 largest parts of the budget, so cutting anything else without cuts in these three won't accomplish much.

[mdonsbach]

I'd love to have the option to well opt out of Social Security. I'd rather be able to take that money and invest it myself thus making me responsible for my own security.

But I kid myself.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by gibb52

They need to raise the Soc Sec tax back up to 12.4%. Stupid idea to cut it to begin with. The earnings ceiling on SS taxes will be raised. Medicare taxes will need to rise, somewhere in the 4-4.5% neighborhood. I could see the R's make a deal to stand their ground on taxes but agree to eliminate some deductions among some other tweaks, making taxes go up without "raising taxes".

None of that will help much without massive spending cuts, most of it needs to come from the military budget. We outspend the Iranians 10 to 1. If we can't cut that to 6 to 1 without being scared to death of them that doesn't say much for us. Defense, Medicare and SS are the 3 largest parts of the budget, so cutting anything else without cuts in these three won't accomplish much.

I would bet almost anything that the bolded will not occur. It's the wet dream of every liberal but a 12.4% tax increase on everyone making more that 100K is not going to even be considered.

I think you are pretty much correct on everything else though I think they make cuts to medicare and social security instead of increasing payroll taxes. Expect the retirement age to raise to 70. That could be big trouble in little China if they lock up the IRA's and 401K's until that age as well.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by mdonsbach

I'd love to have the option to well opt out of Social Security. I'd rather be able to take that money and invest it myself thus making me responsible for my own security.

But I kid myself.

And I would bet EVERYTHING I own that that will never happen either. I could imagine them saying you have saved too much of your own money to qualify for Social Security distributions but no way they let you stop making contributions.

[mdonsbach]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

And I would bet EVERYTHING I own that that will never happen either. I could imagine them saying you have saved too much of your own money to qualify for Social Security distributions but no way they let you stop making contributions.

That is what drives me crazy. My contributions are suppose to go to my financial security in the future. Yet I don't have any power over it!

Yet in reality MY contributions are being tapped to pay for other things.

In theory it is a great idea but in reality it is just money that the Govt essentially will have stole from me.

You'd never "invest" in a back then go back to that bank later on asking for you money back and they in turn say sorry we don't have it anymore.

Ack this is why I hate talking about politics it gets me steamed and irriated!

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

And I would bet EVERYTHING I own that that will never happen either. I could imagine them saying you have saved too much of your own money to qualify for Social Security distributions but no way they let you stop making contributions.

So you're encouraging me to be reckless and not save anything? That's the message, right?

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by mdonsbach

That is what drives me crazy. My contributions are suppose to go to my financial security in the future. Yet I don't have any power over it!

Yet in reality MY contributions are being tapped to pay for other things.

In theory it is a great idea but in reality it is just money that the Govt essentially will have stole from me.

You'd never "invest" in a back then go back to that bank later on asking for you money back and they in turn say sorry we don't have it anymore.

Ack this is why I hate talking about politics it gets me steamed and irriated!

Social security is the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

So you're encouraging me to be reckless and not save anything? That's the message, right?

No way. You are going to get robbed but you will always be better off than Club Parasite.

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by Charleston

This would make sense if the media were "fair and balanced". The Republican House passed budgets and other bills that Harry Reid wouldn't even bring up for a vote. Yet it was the Republicans who were labeled "obstructionists" by the President and his minions. And this president's idea of compromise was displayed early in his first term - "I won". It's either his way or the highway. (I'm also not sure why we need more federal education spending, but I get the point).

The Repubs were labeled obstructionists because they are. They filibustered almost literally everything, including bills they sponsored, to deny Obama any accomplishment without regard to the consequences. More filibusters than any Congress in history, by far. Obama was too accommodating for too long, he really thought Repubs would act in good faith on health care, debt ceiling, etc., but they voted as a solid bloc against everything.

[DaytonIllini]

BS Alert

For about the 100th time.

The Democrats in the Senate perverted the filibuster in the 2007-8 Congress and forced over 100 cloture votes. The Republicans being the petty fools that they are upped the ante and when they were in the minority there were over 100 cloture votes in the first year.

[bert]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

The Democrats in the Senate perverted the filibuster in the 2007-8 Congress and forced over 100 cloture votes. The Republicans being the petty fools that they are upped the ante and when they were in the minority there were over 100 cloture votes in the first year.

Dems controlled the Senate in 2007-8 so it was the Repubs doing the filibuster in your statistic. The filibuster has become common in the last 10 or 20 years but nobody every planned for the Senate to be a place where it takes 60 votes to get anything done. There's been as much filibustering in the last couple of years as you had in almost the first 200 years of our nation.

http://healthreformtrends.com/2010/0...buster-factor/

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by bert

Dems controlled the Senate in 2007-8 so it was the Repubs doing the filibuster in your statistic. The filibuster has become common in the last 10 or 20 years but nobody every planned for the Senate to be a place where it takes 60 votes to get anything done. There's been as much filibustering in the last couple of years as you had in almost the first 200 years of our nation.

http://healthreformtrends.com/2010/0...buster-factor/

Yes. You Are Coreect. And I am not saying its good. Just that both sides have used it in the minority. I think the Dems used it on all the judges IIRC.

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Yes. You Are Coreect. And I am not saying its good. Just that both sides have used it in the minority. I think the Dems used it on all the judges IIRC.

BS or correct? I'm as confused as a Fox News viewer.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinibob

BS or correct? I'm as confused as a Fox News viewer.

You are a liberal and probably only know liberals. So you probably never saw someone admit they were wrong before. You should try it. You don't need to hunt for something you were wrong about. Just choose anything you've said recently. There's a better than even chance you were wrong about whatever you choose.

[Ransom Stoddard]

Originally Posted by illinibob

BS or correct? I'm as confused as a Fox News viewer.

Fox viewers are rarely confused provided they never get their information from anywhere else other than Drudge.

[Clemens]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Yes. You Are Coreect. And I am not saying its good. Just that both sides have used it in the minority. I think the Dems used it on all the judges IIRC.

wrong again



During Bush's first term, Senate Democrats used filibusters to block 10 of his 218 court nominees. Bush renominated seven of them this year, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is threatening to force a confrontation over the issue this week.

Edit: I should add this

For the 28 district court nominees the Senate has voted on this year, Reid said he filed cloture 19 times.

"In other words, we have had to break a Republican filibuster on 67 percent of the district judges we have considered and confirmed," Reid said.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Clemens

wrong again



During Bush's first term, Senate Democrats used filibusters to block 10 of his 218 court nominees. Bush renominated seven of them this year, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is threatening to force a confrontation over the issue this week.

Edit: I should add this

For the 28 district court nominees the Senate has voted on this year, Reid said he filed cloture 19 times.

"In other words, we have had to break a Republican filibuster on 67 percent of the district judges we have considered and confirmed," Reid said.

Afraid not. They decided to block judges in a concerted fashion with capricious or specious reasoning. It got so bad that 7 Democrats crossed the aisle to form the Gang of 14 to block the Left's bizarre filibustering of qualified judges.

And filing cloture does not equate to a filibuster anymore. The majority routinely files cloture as a procedural move. You can no longer just count up cloture votes and see the effect of the filibuster.

For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken
as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as
filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is
present is always a matter of judgment.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RL30360.pdf

See page 4 for the quote.

Or you can just keep talking the Democatic talking points that have been shown by the Senate itself to be BS. That said the Republicans have done a lot of filibustering. I believe they filibustered ObamaCare nearly 100 times as amendments were added and it kept coming up for votes in the Senate.

By the way, the Reid Democrats have actually filibustered a fair number of times in the Senate last term to block popular bipartisan proposals like Keystone. So basically it's another case of liberals being full of sh%%

Friday, March 09, 2012
DEMS BLOCK KEYSTONE WITH FILIBUSTER

Senate rejects GOP measure to build oil pipeline
Ted Barrett, Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib, March 8, 2012 (CNN)

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/20...ilibuster.html

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

You are a liberal and probably only know liberals. So you probably never saw someone admit they were wrong before. You should try it. You don't need to hunt for something you were wrong about. Just choose anything you've said recently. There's a better than even chance you were wrong about whatever you choose.

That assessment is less accurate than the George Will, Dick Morris and Karl Rove pre-election predictions, and about as evidence-based. Best wishes to you and your analytical soulmates.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinibob

That assessment is less accurate than the George Will, Dick Morris and Karl Rove pre-election predictions, and about as evidence-based. Best wishes to you and your analytical soulmates.

LOL. Yeah. You're a moderate. It's just that your definition of moderate would include Lenin and Castro. Got it.

[Leonardite]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

LOL. Yeah. You're a moderate. It's just that your definition of moderate would include Lenin and Castro. Got it.

Dayton, you can't reason with Liberals and sometimes I wonder why you even try.