It seems that the Presidency has been cheapened and it wasn't by us.
It seems that the Presidency has been cheapened and it wasn't by us.
carguy123 wrote: It seems that the Presidency has been cheapened and it wasn't by us.
Inflation is a bitch...
Did you see what I did there? 
HiTempguy wrote:carguy123 wrote: It seems that the Presidency has been cheapened and it wasn't by us.Inflation is a bitch... Did you see what I did there?
Yeah, now I bet you think you're cool.
Even so it's expensive to buy yourself a presidency. I wonder if we'll ever know how much it cost to get the Big O his seat?
carguy123 wrote: Yeah, now I bet you think you're cool.
No, it was a simple joke (nothing political about it, would have been the same joke democrat or republican). I'll go to my corner now.
HiTempguy wrote:carguy123 wrote: Yeah, now I bet you think you're cool.
Hey, take credit where you can.
Too bad the "Mack Penny Plan" doesn't seem to be getting much attention.
It seems the most realistic/feasible, although it still leaves open where to cut what.
z31maniac wrote: Too bad the "Mack Penny Plan" doesn't seem to be getting much attention. It seems the most realistic/feasible, although it still leaves open where to cut what.
It's getting a TON of attention from the fox news crowd, and it's been fun watching boehner and old boiledturkeyneck mccain's asses get backed into a corner.
In reply to z31maniac:
From what I have heard it makes pretty good sense. Which of course means it will never get past the Rs or the Ds.
Everything I've seen come out of Washington is a joke. None of them are serious about reducing the debit or cutting spending. They are just changing the looks of the same old game and posturing for the TV cameras. Cutting trillions out of the base line that already had increases in it? The best they can do will still add to the debit? How about actually cutting spending. If this is the best this country can come up with when the cards are on the table, we deserve to be broke. 
Now, where did I put that Mandarin dictionary...
poopshovel wrote:z31maniac wrote: Too bad the "Mack Penny Plan" doesn't seem to be getting much attention. It seems the most realistic/feasible, although it still leaves open where to cut what.It's getting a TON of attention from the fox news crowd, and it's been fun watching boehner and old boiledturkeyneck mccain's asses get backed into a corner.
Is it? I have to admit, I don't WATCH any news (no cable, over that air TV) I only read it.
I think it was originally proposed a month ago.
In fact, I'd be for the 1% across the board, as opposed to letting Congress get to spend another 4 years arguing about exactly what gets cut.
All I can say is I am glad I have British citizenship. I can bail the berkeley out if it gets as bad as I think it will.
^You mean the country that continues to rail against the US whilst having a dramatically larger debt-to-GDP ratio?
Quite a lot larger debt to income ratio as I remember it. And I know the tax rate is significantly higher. The Brits have a system that makes it good to be an alien.
Right now a lot of both parties actions are posturing for the election. On this one I have to side with the Republican although I don't really expect much out of them. I'd like some real action even tho it would hurt, but I know we aren't going to get it.
This is an issue that is just getting passed onto the next set of politicos so that the present crop doesn't have to really deal with it. But who'd finally going to do something?
I can't imagine this going on for much longer and then both parties will point fingers at each other when it comes to election time and say "We'd have really done some good and fixed this thing but the other guys wouldn't let us."
Until both parties are willing to shat, past tense of the rude word for defecate, all over their supporting voting blocks nothing will get done.
Democrats are going to have to talk about modifying SocSecurity, MedCare, etc. It's just going to have to happen. The Baby Boomers will suffer.
Republicans are going to have to tax their best buddies - The rich and bankers. They will also have to cut off the cash spigot to defense industries. They will have to cut subsidies to obscenely wealthy and profitable oil companies.
It's going to be blood shed in the next election....or the U.S. economy will collapse because whoever loans us money will do so at exorbitant interest rates. The rating companies have stated we need to cut $4 trillion to retain our AAA rating. Without that rating all gov't loans cost much,much more. Virginia's governor is sh!tting bricks right now.
Xceler8x wrote: Until both parties are willing to shat, past tense of the rude word for defecate, all over their supporting voting blocks nothing will get done. Democrats are going to have to talk about modifying SocSecurity, MedCare, etc. It's just going to have to happen. The Baby Boomers will suffer. Republicans are going to have to tax their best buddies - The rich and bankers. They will also have to cut off the cash spigot to defense industries. They will have to cut subsidies to obscenely wealthy and profitable oil companies. It's going to be blood shed in the next election....or the U.S. economy will collapse because whoever loans us money will do so at exorbitant interest rates. The rating companies have stated we need to cut $4 trillion to retain our AAA rating. Without that rating all gov't loans cost much,much more. Virginia's governor is sh!tting bricks right now.
Yep.
Xceler8x wrote: Until both parties are willing to shat, past tense of the rude word for defecate, all over their supporting voting blocks nothing will get done. Democrats are going to have to talk about modifying SocSecurity, MedCare, etc. It's just going to have to happen. The Baby Boomers will suffer. Republicans are going to have to tax their best buddies - The rich and bankers. They will also have to cut off the cash spigot to defense industries. They will have to cut subsidies to obscenely wealthy and profitable oil companies. It's going to be blood shed in the next election....or the U.S. economy will collapse because whoever loans us money will do so at exorbitant interest rates. The rating companies have stated we need to cut $4 trillion to retain our AAA rating. Without that rating all gov't loans cost much,much more. Virginia's governor is sh!tting bricks right now.
Seems to me you are right. Let's look at your list.
Cut and reform entitlement programs.
Cut Military spending.
Raise taxes.
Hey, wait a minute. I think I heard something about someone who proposed something very much like that. What was his name? O-something.
Many Democrats support exactly what you're saying. Almost no Republican supports what you're saying. What you're asking for is a compromise. I couldn't agree more.
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
What has O proposed on paper that outlines that plan? Was it his 2012 budget that was universally and bi-partisanly rejected in the Senate, 97-0? Asked, because I'm curious.........
Yes, there are some Democrats who endorse tackling the spending, but there are strong elements within their party that are equal to the Republoican recalcitrants supported by the Tea Party. At this point, only the Republican-led house has offered specific plans and the Senate has done little but denigrate the plans and proclaim them as DOA. It's time for the Dems and the President to "step up".
IMHO, there is a far stronger argument for drastically cutting spending along with huge tax reform; the end result could increase revenues with a modest tax hike. But neither side (led by old-school power mongers) have the political cojones to relinquish their abilities to reward or punish friends or enemies.
We're all on the same page here. Nutshell = cut spending, reform thereby raising taxes.
OldSaw seems to have most closely nailed the politico's motivation to resist change or making it such a small course correction as to be negligible.
Time for both sides of the aisle to grab some sack and go do their jobs. Talking is not to be confused with action.
Not a prediction- fact.
There WILL be spending cuts. Both sides will cut spending. There will be NO tax increase. ONE side will prevent it.
That's not compromise. Everyone outside Washington is saying the same thing- what we're all saying here. We need to do both. But there is a small group on one side saying "too bad, we know what's best and we'll decide for you".
Increasing the debt ceiling IS the compromise.
I'm really liking what I've read about the penny plan. http://news.yahoo.com/mack-penny-plan-gains-more-momentum-u-senate-195104672.html
DILYSI Dave wrote: Increasing the debt ceiling IS the compromise.
No, that's blackmail. "We won't destroy the economy if you do meet our demands". Compromise would include giving up something you want and include something the other side wants.
If you don't want to increase the debt, but are willing to, that is compromise.
DILYSI Dave wrote: If you don't want to increase the debt, but are willing to, that is compromise.
I dissagree, and I'll try to explain why. We elect people and they pass laws. That's how our country works. For decades, the Congress has passed spending measures but no means of paying for them. They took those votes and those votes passed. The laws they passed require spending. More spending than taxes generate.
Now they want to come back after the fact and vote on them again. Now they want to pretend as if they didn't spend all the money that got us into this hole. Now they want to pretend like all those votes didn't happen.
But they did. The spending was legislated, voted on, passed and executed. The hole was dug. It's not a "compromise" to say you're going to pay your bills. I don't want to pay my mortgage. But I signed the loan. Now I have to pay for it. Doing so isn't a compromise.
I really see more compromise from the R's. The D's only want this to go away until after the next election. That is their number one objective. i think they'd sign almost anything if they could get that. That is truly the holdup on their part.
Let's talk cuts. You have to have real cuts, and I mean cuts right now. In the past, yes we've seen this before many times, they talk cuts like so much over 10 years, etc., only those never happen. Every congress can pass it's on budget. I don't really remember any real cuts in my lifetime, and I'm old as dirt. All we get is spend, spend, spend. Let's keep giving away crap to get elected and and get those SOB rich people and businesses to pay for it. It's the same old line you hear everytime. Problem is, that's not really the problem and not the way the world really works. Rich people (and trust me, I'm not one of them) already pretty much pay for everything we have. If you look at the percentages, it's overwhelmingly in their brackets.
How much is enough? Do we want to be like England? Do we want crappy everything with tax brackets so high that people leave the country to avoid them? We're already seeing that in many cities and states. Businesses are already abandoning states to more friendly ones, and the US for friendlier tax countries. Do we want to continue to destroy what is left of our economy by countinuing run off the very people that can make a difference? To take money out of the economy? Typically speaking, raising taxes will lower the overall tax revenues.
I'm certainly not saying we don't need to revise our tax code. There are many out there that do not pay at all, and some that are hosed. We also need to look everywhere we're spending money, and yes, I'd look at the military budget too. But I'm back to my previous comments, governments by definition are wasteful. The bigger the government, the more power they have, the more wasteful they are going to be with other people''s money.
The simple fact is, while the R's plan may be not all that, at least they have one. The D's have really not put anything meaningful on the table. Reid's plan was basically just a pull out of Afganistian as a means of reduction. That's going to happen anyway. They can't do a budget, they can't do a deficit reduction. They know that anything they put on paper will be used against them, so their unwilling to do so.
Once again, just show me a plan, sgrow some balls, vote on it, and let's get on with our lives.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: If you don't want to increase the debt, but are willing to, that is compromise.I dissagree, and I'll try to explain why. We elect people and they pass laws. That's how our country works. For decades, the Congress has passed spending measures but no means of paying for them. They took those votes and those votes passed. The laws they passed require spending. More spending than taxes generate. Now they want to come back after the fact and vote on them again. Now they want to pretend as if they didn't spend all the money that got us into this hole. Now they want to pretend like all those votes didn't happen. But they did. The spending was legislated, voted on, passed and executed. The hole was dug. It's not a "compromise" to say you're going to pay your bills. I don't want to pay my mortgage. But I signed the loan. Now I have to pay for it. Doing so isn't a compromise.
Nobody is saying they don't want to pay the credit card bill. They are saying, let's stop using the credit card.
racerdave600 wrote: I really see more compromise from the R's. The D's only want this to go away until after the next election. That is their number one objective. i think they'd sign almost anything if they could get that. That is truly the holdup on their part.
The 2012 elections is a referundum for BOTH parties. The Dems want to see the debt ceiling/spending issue deferred, the Repubs want it as part of the national debate.
Unless the economy shows a dramatic upward swing in the next week, the Dems know their party (and ideology) are on the weak side of the argument. Just my humble opinion....
You'll need to log in to post.
