i thought cutting was the goal?

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43708556/ns/politics/


lol gotta laugh at the new euphemism of 'revenue increases'. let's not call it what it is.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43708556/ns/politics/


lol gotta laugh at the new euphemism of 'revenue increases'. let's not call it what it is.

Yeah, next thing you know, they'll stop counting the unemployed people after a couple of years, thus reducing the reported figure. Oh, wait a minute....

[Danzig]

a wsj view on the debt crisis, etc

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read


and i found this link, as i had read the piece in the paper here...

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/artic...imate-speeches


i went to factcheck, and did find this from obama's april budget speech:

http://factcheck.org/2011/04/factche...budget-speech/







and all that is all well and good...but i can't help but wonder why the govt let the debt ceiling get so close before doing anything. why didn't they let the tax cuts expire rather then extend them? how much would that have helped? why is the military budget larger than a year ago? why didn't obama and his party take more steps when they had the majorities in congress and held the executive? it's been left til now so that they would have to rush, just jack it up, and worry about all the reform later.
the ceiling will be raised. the question is what else will occur? i'm figuring not a lot.

[joeydb]

One congressman says "Let's LOWER the debt ceiling":

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...bt-ceiling.php

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

One congressman says "Let's LOWER the debt ceiling":

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...bt-ceiling.php

then he's an idiot. they've let this go too long not to raise.

[joeydb]

In the LONG term, the debt ceiling should be lowered, then, once debt is paid off, eliminated.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

In the LONG term, the debt ceiling should be lowered, then, once debt is paid off, eliminated.

It's physically impossible to eliminate us having any rolling debt. A country doesn't function like a household, no matter how many pols try to use the analogies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

One congressman says "Let's LOWER the debt ceiling":

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...bt-ceiling.php

That's ignorant. We could stop spending 100% tomorrow, and the debt ceiling will still have to be regularly raised.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why didn't obama and his party take more steps when they had the majorities in congress and held the executive?

Because they didn't hold a supermajority in the Senate, so they had extreme difficulty getting routine things passed. Remember? The most obstructionist Senate ever?

And the current House is the least working (two weeks on, one week off), and least bills passed, in modern times. And 1/3 of the bills they passed were simply naming things.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because they didn't hold a supermajority in the Senate, so they had extreme difficulty getting routine things passed. Remember? The most obstructionist Senate ever?

And the current House is the least working (two weeks on, one week off), and least bills passed, in modern times. And 1/3 of the bills they passed were simply naming things.

i feel that if they were able to get obamacare passed, they left plenty undone. i wonder if that was the deal? the reps allowed that to pass, at the expense of other things the dems wanted. wouldn't surprise me a bit to know that backdoor deals like that happen.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i feel that if they were able to get obamacare passed, they left plenty undone. i wonder if that was the deal? the reps allowed that to pass, at the expense of other things the dems wanted. wouldn't surprise me a bit to know that backdoor deals like that happen.

Remember that in the House, all Republicans and 34 Dems voted against it (but it still passed); but in the Senate, a 60 vote supermajority was needed, and all 40 Republicans voting against it, and the Independents joining the Dems to pass it with the 60 supermajority (a supermajority isn't needed for regular bills in normal times, but the Republicans were obstructing every senate vote)

Joe Leibermann at the last minute voted for it, passing it.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Remember that in the House, all Republicans and 34 Dems voted against it (but it still passed); but in the Senate, a 60 vote supermajority was needed, and all 40 Republicans voting against it, and the Independents joining the Dems to pass it with the 60 supermajority (a supermajority isn't needed for regular bills in normal times, but the Republicans were obstructing every senate vote)

Joe Leibermann at the last minute voted for it, passing it.

its was actually the unprecedented use of the Slaughter rule that got obamacare passed. very very shady

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Remember that in the House, all Republicans and 34 Dems voted against it (but it still passed); but in the Senate, a 60 vote supermajority was needed, and all 40 Republicans voting against it, and the Independents joining the Dems to pass it with the 60 supermajority (a supermajority isn't needed for regular bills in normal times, but the Republicans were obstructing every senate vote)

Joe Leibermann at the last minute voted for it, passing it.

and like i said above, if that bill that so many were against could pass, so could other democrat measures. that's one of the reasons many in his own party are unhappy with obama; he had an opportunity to do more, and he squandered it. because he didn't want to do too much, and possibly lose seats he tried to play it safe and it cost him.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43708556/ns/politics/


lol gotta laugh at the new euphemism of 'revenue increases'. let's not call it what it is.

There is raising the marginal tax rate, and eliminating loopholes. Eliminating loopholes could open up the base to an increase that would allow the rates to be lowered.

Call it what you wish, we have never had lower tax revenue compared to our spending. The inbalance is too significant. We gave away too much revenue in cuts, and we need it back. We cannot "cut" our way to prosperity in a recession. Well, we can, but we have to decide who gets to die on the street from the Congressional death panel: young disabled or old starving and sick.

[dellinger63]

We need to address the two biggest expenses, Social Security & (SSI) and Medicare/Medicaid. At the very least as average expectency of life goes up so should the minimum retirement/benefit age.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

We need to address the two biggest expenses, Social Security & (SSI) and Medicare/Medicaid. At the very least as average expectency of life goes up so should minimum retirement/benefit age.

Social Security does not contribute to the debt at all, and is solvent if left alone until 2030, when 78% of current rates are payable if nothing at all is done.

Medicare-Medicaid is doing well, it is proven far more efficient and cost-effective than private insurance for the same population, but needs some definitive tweeks. Perhaps we can allow the government to bargain for drug costs, and cut several billion a year over time. Changing duplicate pay policies saves some more. Obama already took 500 billion of waste out for the PPACA.

Oh - and Obama offered a raised Medicare age in the big deal benefits package, according to leaks to Sam Stein, which he published today. The GOP just turned that one down. Sorry. The GOP party of "we screw ourselves" continues.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security does not contribute to the debt at all, and is solvent if left alone until 2030, when 78% of current rates are payable if nothing at all is done.

Medicare-Medicaid is doing well, it is proven far more efficient and cost-effective than private insurance for the same population, but needs some definitive tweeks. Perhaps we can allow the government to bargain for drug costs, and cut several billion a year over time. Changing duplicate pay policies saves some more. Obama already took 500 billion of waste out for the PPACA.

Oh - and Obama offered a raised Medicare age in the big deal benefits package, according to leaks to Sam Stein, which he published today. The GOP just turned that one down. Sorry. The GOP party of "we screw ourselves" continues.

social security is funded by iou's. everyone has recognized it needs help, but no one wants to be the one to grab onto that one.
the govt has borrowed from itself-it just hasn't figured out how to pay itself back yet. of course, it can't default on that debt. problem now is that they are so far in debt elsewhere, where will the money come from the pay ss back???

[lord007]

Remember...We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill...Famous word's of?????

[Riot]

Originally Posted by lord007

Remember...We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill...Famous word's of?????

LOL - Yeah. When there's a proposed bill in the Senate committee, and proposed bills in the House committees, and a proposed bill content from the President, and different factions are trying to get their different proposals passed, and a reporter asks the Speaker of the House "What of those options will be in the final bill?", the Speaker rightly answers, "We'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it".

Oh, it's so clever to hear people quote right wing "out of context" nonsense from two years ago!

Guess what was said today? Same thing. We'll have to have a final bill, before we know what will be in the final bill.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security does not contribute to the debt at all, and is solvent if left alone until 2030, when 78% of current rates are payable if nothing at all is done.

Why then is the Pres. saying SS checks won't go out unless he's allowed to borrow more money. He's not going to divert SS money to pay something else, like Pelosi's salary is he?