GOP Rejects White House Opening Budget Bid

[RandomGuy]

I find it funny because wasn't this like the bulk of the content in his campaign?

Republicans Shocked At White House’s Opening Budget Bid Is Everything Obama Campaigned On | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/gop-rejects-white-house-opening-budget-bid.php)

[Sinfix_15]

The next 4 years of Obama's presidency will be campaigning to bury the republican party. Dont expect much to be accomplished. Expect it to be 4 more years of failure with Obama standing in front of a camera reading a teleprompter that says "it's the GOP's fault"

[.blank cd]

The Republican Party is pretty effective at burying themselves.

[Sinfix_15]

The Republican Party is pretty effective at burying themselves.

bumper sticker

[Vteckidd]

I find it funny because wasn't this like the bulk of the content in his campaign?

Republicans Shocked At White House’s Opening Budget Bid Is Everything Obama Campaigned On | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/gop-rejects-white-house-opening-budget-bid.php)

Expected. Just like Obama will reject anything the GOP sends up there. I dont see any specific mention of Entitlement reforms. Where is this 4 trillion in deficit cutting the article claims?

[BanginJimmy]

Since the article doesnt give any details about what the GOP objected to I will point out 1 part that would have me rejecting a plan that included 400B in spending cuts alone, with no tax increases.


and would eliminate congressional control over the debt limit altogether.


Non starter and I hope the GOP made that known.

[Vteckidd]

Yeah LOL at "we want to lower deficits as long as you give us the power to spend uncontrollably".

Sounds legit

[Vteckidd]

I promise ill pay down my credit card if you increase my limit to infinity.

[RandomGuy]

On the Fiscal Cliff, Republicans Got Nothin (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/on-the-fiscal-cliff-republicans-got-nothin.html)

[BanginJimmy]

On the Fiscal Cliff, Republicans Got Nothin (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/on-the-fiscal-cliff-republicans-got-nothin.html)

That article would almost be worth reading if it wasn't so partisan. It does make 1 good point though. Dems are very full of themselves right now.

They are so busy playing politics they aren't even making an attempt to get control of the budget. Their entire agenda is to simply take more from the people that earned it in order to give it to people that didn't.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[.blank cd]

Their entire agenda is to simply take more from the people that earned it in order to give it to people that didn't.

How is taxing top earners to add revenue equal to giving money to people that don't earn it?

[Vteckidd]

How is taxing top earners to add revenue equal to giving money to people that don't earn it?

Because Obama wants to use the tax increases to fund more social programs, even though its a horrible argument in the first place. Letting the Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% amount to 80-100 billion dollars a year in additional revenue assuming receipts stay the same (they wont, but lets assume it does).

YOure asking me to believe that 80-100 billion dollars a year stands between us and what? Paying down our deficit (16 TRILLION dollars)? The interest ALONE wont touch what we save in additional tax revenues.

If Obama were SERIOUS about cutting the deficit, he would not need tax increases. Surely its far easier to cut 80-100 billion out of the budget then to raise taxes on a segment of the population who does create jobs. Its less than 5% of the budget DEFICIT we are running right now.

Taxing the rich is pure political class warfare to score cheap points by telling uniformed people to attack someone else. Now, if you believe rates should increase because its a moral issue, or its fair, or whatever then say it, I would at least understand it. But hes pandering to people in speeches saying that he wants to balance the budget by asking the wealthy to pay more, while running deficits that are 100 times greater. Its stupid, its retarded.

Personally, they should let the rates expire on EVERYONE, and cut spending 10% per year across the board in defense, education , etc. We should take Social Security and means test/reform it, same with medicare and medicaide.

I hope we go over the cliff, because thats the ONLY way we will ever get the real spending cuts we need, and if i have to trade that for tax increases across the board so be it. THe political fallout would be huge, and hopefully enough to throw most everyone out of office

[.blank cd]

Because Obama wants to use the tax increases to fund more social programs, even though its a horrible argument in the first place. Letting the Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% amount to 80-100 billion dollars a year in additional revenue assuming receipts stay the same (they wont, but lets assume it does).So the proposal, which includes almost 10% in military cuts, and almost 10% in social program cuts, means funding more social programs?

How is taxing the top earners to add revenue equal to giving money to people that don't earn it?


If Obama were SERIOUS about cutting the deficit, he would not need tax increases. Surely its far easier to cut 80-100 billion out of the budget then to raise taxes on a segment of the population who does create jobs. Its less than 5% of the budget DEFICIT we are running right now.100b is almost 10% of the deficit.

And the $$ you proposed cutting from Education and infrastructure would go a lot further if it were not cut. We wouldn't want to raise taxes on middle to lower income people, the segment of the population that creates jobs, would we?

[Vteckidd]

Deficit = 1600 billion (1.6 trillion)

80-100 billion in revenues = 1/16 or less than 5% of current DEFICIT. its less than 1% of the overall budget itself (3 trillion I believe )

We spend too much money everyone has to pay , cut defense cut social programs with means testing, scale back education because it doesn't work , etc.

Obama wants 80-100 billion in revenues and more stim spending that was his proposal this last week.

[BanginJimmy]

And the $$ you proposed cutting from Education and infrastructure would go a lot further if it were not cut. We wouldn't want to raise taxes on middle to lower income people, the segment of the population that creates jobs, would we?

Like it did the first time Obama tried it?

Those education dollars went to teachers, not students.

That infrastructure spending? Let me guess, reserved for more shovel ready projects?

Middle and lower class are job creators? That's the biggest load of BS I have heard in a while. How many people do you know that were hired by someone in the lower or middle class? If you do claim to know someone I can say for a fact that the job didn't last long.


Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[.blank cd]

Middle and lower class are job creators? That's the biggest load of BS I have heard in a while. How many people do you know that were hired by someone in the lower or middle class?its just common sense, and a little bit off economics 1102. Middle and poor class people are just as much, if not more, responsible for job creation as the upper class.

[BanginJimmy]

its just common sense, and a little bit off economics 1102. Middle and poor class people are just as much, if not more, responsible for job creation as the upper class.

You are going to have to prove this one. Common sense says poor people don't start many businesses and immediately hire employees.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[Vteckidd]

its just common sense, and a little bit off economics 1102. Middle and poor class people are just as much, if not more, responsible for job creation as the upper class.
This is the argument that consumer spending= job creation. If there werent any middle class people , the business owners wouldnt be in business.

While I do agree with you that there is truth to that, but what is more likely, please answer honestly:

A) Obama taxes the rick for an extra 80-100 billion and that leads to more jobs for the middle class

or

B) We cut spending, which leads to directly more capital to invest=more jobs


I dont think you can rationally make any argument that the 80-100billion extra in revenues somehow evens the playing field or directly helps the middle class. Right? Just admit its more of a fairness thing.

both sides are posturing bullshit, Obama doesnt give a fuck about tax rates, its a away to pander to his base, and the republicans are REALLY serious about spending cuts because they dont want to touch defense.

[Sinfix_15]

Taxes shouldnt be raised on anyone until the government gets a handle on their spending addiction.

[.blank cd]

What makes you think there's a spending addiction?

[BanginJimmy]

What makes you think there's a spending addiction?


How about 6+ trillion in deficit spending over 4 years?

[.blank cd]

While I do agree with you that there is truth to that, but what is more likely, please answer honestly:

A) Obama taxes the rick for an extra 80-100 billion and that leads to more jobs for the middle class

or

B) We cut spending, which leads to directly more capital to invest=more jobsBoth a and b.



I dont think you can rationally make any argument that the 80-100billion extra in revenues somehow evens the playing field or directly helps the middle class. Right? Just admit its more of a fairness thing.Its just an "add revenue" thing from sources that can handle it. I don't see it affecting investments at all unless someone's purely ideologically motivated to stop investing for some reason

"Hey man, I've got an idea for an investment, you could make millions on the return!"

"Nah, that's ok, they raised taxes 10%"

[Vteckidd]

What makes you think there's a spending addiction?

Over the next decade, Obama's budget would rack up $6.4 trillion in deficits 2013-2017 JAN 1. That is more than 1 trillion a year. And let me let you in on a little secret, the projections are ALWAYS on the low side.

I do agree with you that the "rich" can afford to pay the extra 4% in taxes(no idea where you get 10% from, the existing tax rate is 35% it would increase to 39%), but the other side of that is what are we gaining from that tax increase? 80-100 billion in tax revenue , compared to the 1600 billion in over spending doesnt make much sense right?

If you came to me saying you were making $10/hr, and you were losing $160 a month, you think a .10 raise would really helop you? or are you better served trimming down your expenses?

if its a fairness thing for you personally, then just say that.

For comparisons sake, i do not think the GOP plan makes sense either, hence we should go over the imaginary cliff IMO. Its the only way we well all get what we want, TRUE spending cuts, and higher tax rates.

[Sinfix_15]

What makes you think there's a spending addiction?

Highest deficits in world history by more than double. Highest white house spending in history by large margin. You think it's normal that the Obamas cost tax payers 1.4 trillion dollars last year?

[.blank cd]

How about 6+ trillion in deficit spending over 4 years?


Highest deficits in world history by more than double. Highest white house spending in history by large margin. You think it's normal that the Obamas cost tax payers 1.4 trillion dollars last year?

Economists say deficit spending is a good thing during recession periods. They must all not know what they're talking about, right?

Or should I believe a bunch of angry conservatives that hate Obama because $-1T is a lot of money we don't have?

[Sinfix_15]

Economists say deficit spending is a good thing during recession periods. They must all not know what they're talking about, right?

Or should I believe a bunch of angry conservatives that hate Obama because $-1T is a lot of money we don't have?

So, the people that reduced our credit rating and threaten to do it again, they must all not know what theyre talking about, right?

[.blank cd]

So, the people that reduced our credit rating and threaten to do it again, they must all not know what theyre talking about, right?

Why do you think the US credit rating was downgraded?

[Vteckidd]

Economists say deficit spending is a good thing during recession periods. They must all not know what they're talking about, right?



That is not a "sum is always true". Deficit spending helps a bad economy, HOW. Answer me that first.

Secondly, cutting taxes creates jobs, so should we cut taxes to 0%? Obviously not. So likewise just because deficit spending does happen during a recession, doesnt mean we should spend more than any other president in history COMBINED in our first 2 years (Obama did and continues too). Also, the economy is not exactly rebounding either. Unless the new norm is 8% UE and youre ok with that.

or sub 2% GDP growth

Ill answer the question i asked earlier (but you prob already know this).

During a recession, GDP shrinks, which means tax revenues decrease, less money is available, capital is restricted, loans are restricted, etc. Therefore usually governments run deficits to make up for the loss in tax revenues they are seeing. Then, if you run stimulus spending you get a bump in the economy artificially because you are injecting money into the economy. Problem is its artificial, its not sustainable. You can look at Obamas first term to see that fact.

[Vteckidd]

Why do you think the US credit rating was downgraded?

Out of control fiscal priorities

[.blank cd]

Out of control fiscal priorities

As per Standard & Poor's:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon."

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

"...Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the [Budget Control Act of 2011]."

[Vteckidd]

The same s&p that rayed CDS as A RATED TRIPLE GOLD?

yeah not really that trustworthy . I wasn't arguing it was dems fault, it has to so with Washington spending . Taxes will not cure deifict woes look at the numbers.

[.blank cd]

The same s&p that rayed CDS as A RATED TRIPLE GOLD.

CDS?

[Vteckidd]

Credit Default Swaps.

Moodys and S&P and all kinds of other agencies were stamping CDS as AAA GOLD PLATINUM securities, we all know how that turned out. Im not obsessive over out credit rating because I think its all devious anyway. Doesnt change the fact that the number speak for themselves.

We are spending massive amount of money we dont have, and spending money we dont need to be spending.

[Echonova]

Too Big To Fail.




Even though it's done by those left-leaning hippies at HBO. It's still an awesome movie, and provides a basic understanding on what happened.

[.blank cd]

Credit Default Swaps.

Moodys and S&P and all kinds of other agencies were stamping CDS as AAA GOLD PLATINUM securities, we all know how that turned out.I didn't know what you meant by CDS. Thought you meant CD's (Certificates of Deposit)

[BanginJimmy]

Seems the Whore House and the rest of the dems arent in much of a mood for bargaining either. They just want their way and will do anything to get it.

Dems resist GOP counter-offer to avert fiscal crisis, as Pelosi tries to force vote on tax bill | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/04/dems-resist-gop-counter-offer-to-avert-fiscal-crisis/)



This is why going over the financial cliff will probably happen, at least temporarily. Like Vtec, I think this may actuall be a good thing if it lasts long enough to really start hurting. Congress has been punting on the deficits issue for decades with just a short visit into reality during the Clinton Admin. After Clinton, Bush spent like a drunk sailor at a whore house. Obama is making Bush look like Scrooge McDuck. Before Clinton we had HW Bush, who was simply ineffective even though he really didnt do anything wrong. Reagan inherited a terrible economy and a worse tax structure. On top of that, he went crazy with the spending.


IMO Reagan is the only one of the 4 that gets a pass. He had a specific goal behind his spending. He grew the military in both strength and sophistication with 1 goal in mind, bankrupt the Soviet Union and bring down the wall. The Soviets helped in that by invading Asscrackistan.

[BanginJimmy]

Both a and b.


Its just an "add revenue" thing from sources that can handle it. I don't see it affecting investments at all unless someone's purely ideologically motivated to stop investing for some reason

"Hey man, I've got an idea for an investment, you could make millions on the return!"

"Nah, that's ok, they raised taxes 10%"


Here is where your idea is flawed. Those investments are a risk. They may lose money and adding an extra 10% in taxes will cause some investors risk/reward equations to change. This is especially true on the riskier investments.

[Vteckidd]

Too Big To Fail.




Even though it's done by those left-leaning hippies at HBO. It's still an awesome movie, and provides a basic understanding on what happened.

The Matt Damon narrated movie was much better IMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_%28film%29

[Echonova]

The Matt Damon narrated movie was much better IMO

Inside Job (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_%28film%29)I have not seen and/or heard of that movie, I will pick up a copy.

[BanginJimmy]

So the fiscal cliff has been averted, well partially. People that still earn an income will see a minimum of a 2% jump in their taxes.

The people that no longer earn an income through wages, like Warren Buffet, will see no rise in their taxes.

EDIT: I havent confirmed this yet but I think I just heard that capital gains taxes jumped 5% also.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[Vteckidd]

So the fiscal cliff has been averted, well partially. People that still earn an income will see a minimum of a 2% jump in their taxes.

The people that no longer earn an income through wages, like Warren Buffet, will see no rise in their taxes.

EDIT: I havent confirmed this yet but I think I just heard that capital gains taxes jumped 5% also.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

SS Taxes went back to the normal rate which effects everyone who gets a paycheck, like 2.3% increase. No big deal, should have happened.

Income taxes on individual making 400k+ went from 35%- 39% (Households 450k+)

Capital gains , which effects every american who invest, jumped from 15% to 20%

And in return, we got ZERO SPENDING CUTS

GOP needs to have its balls chopped off. What a bunch of spineless wimps. How did they let the Dems get away with ZERO SPENDING CUTS.

[.blank cd]

And in return, we got ZERO SPENDING CUTS

GOP needs to have its balls chopped off. What a bunch of spineless wimps. How did they let the Dems get away with ZERO SPENDING CUTS.isnt that supposed to happen two months from now?

[Vteckidd]

isnt that supposed to happen two months from now?

They punted because neither party is serious about spending cuts.

[BanginJimmy]

They punted because neither party is serious about spending cuts.

There you go right there. Both parties are more concerned with political points than they are with fixing the fiscal problems they created.

[Vteckidd]

Lets look at both scenarios:

Fiscal Cliff:
Taxes go up for EVERYONE , SS, Payroll taxes, Capital Gains, as well as individual income taxes(rates would go back to clinton era).
Automatic spending cuts implemented across the board for defense and entitlements

What we got:
Taxes go up for everyone, SS, payroll taxes, capital gains, as well as individual income taxes for people making $400,000+
NO SPENDING CUTS


If im the GOP, and spending is the REAL problem (which i agree with 10000%), WHY THE FUCK DO I BACK A BILL WITH NO SPENDING CUTS THAT DOES THE EXACT SAME THING ON TAXES THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY?????

[bu villain]

If im the GOP, and spending is the REAL problem (which i agree with 10000%), WHY THE FUCK DO I BACK A BILL WITH NO SPENDING CUTS THAT DOES THE EXACT SAME THING ON TAXES THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY?????

Because they had no leverage. The dems always had the option of going over the cliff and getting even more increase in taxes. Many democrats were upset they didn't do exactly that. I actually think the GOP did pretty well given that they had no cards to play.

[Sinfix_15]

Because they had no leverage. The dems always had the option of going over the cliff and getting even more increase in taxes. Many democrats were upset they didn't do exactly that. I actually think the GOP did pretty well given that they had no cards to play.

Based on what you just said.... how in the world can anyone possibly support a democratic president?

[BanginJimmy]

Because they had no leverage. The dems always had the option of going over the cliff and getting even more increase in taxes. Many democrats were upset they didn't do exactly that. I actually think the GOP did pretty well given that they had no cards to play.

The only reason the dems had that card to play is because they knew the media would support them by blaming the house GOP. If dems had to worry about the same media tactics that the GOP has to worry about, they would have caved a LONG time ago.

Debt ceiling and budget fights are going to start in the next few weeks. Dems are out of cards to play so maybe the GOP can shape the argument. My guess is that there is more of the same crap we saw this time. Dems get a complete pass by the media and the GOP gets slammed for wanting to execute the pitiful, victimized poor.

Lets be real about this though, GOP is as much to blame as the dems are. With Boehner at the helm, they have offered NOTHING in the form of an alternative to Obama's plans. Until they offer up a plan of their own and stick with it, they will continue to make it easy for the Dems to shape the argument.

[bu villain]

The only reason the dems had that card to play is because they knew the media would support them by blaming the house GOP. If dems had to worry about the same media tactics that the GOP has to worry about, they would have caved a LONG time ago.

Debt ceiling and budget fights are going to start in the next few weeks. Dems are out of cards to play so maybe the GOP can shape the argument. My guess is that there is more of the same crap we saw this time. Dems get a complete pass by the media and the GOP gets slammed for wanting to execute the pitiful, victimized poor.

I don't think that is entirely true. Both parties would have been blamed if nothing was done immediately after going over the cliff. The democrats would simply be in a much better bargaining position after going over the cliff because then everything proposed becomes a tax cut compared to the post cliff rates.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't think that is entirely true. Both parties would have been blamed if nothing was done immediately after going over the cliff. The democrats would simply be in a much better bargaining position after going over the cliff because then everything proposed becomes a tax cut compared to the post cliff rates.


Both parties would not have been blamed. The media would have dropped the blame squarely on the House GOP. Remember how the entire main stream media and every liberal in the world called it the do nothing congress? How many times do you think they singled out the Senate and how many times do you think they singled out the House?

Never mind the fact that the House sent the Senate more than 30 different jobs bills, none of which even got a shot at a vote, the media blamed the House GOP for not acting on Obama's jobs bill.
Never mind the fact that the Senate hasnt even had a real vote on a budget in 3 years, the MSM seems to think its the House that is to blame for the never ending CR's.

[bu villain]

Both parties would not have been blamed. The media would have dropped the blame squarely on the House GOP.

In don't really care what the media says, I'm talking about the public. I think the public would have put some blame on both sides.

[BanginJimmy]

In don't really care what the media says, I'm talking about the public. I think the public would have put some blame on both sides.

By and large, the public believes anything the media says. Most dont take the time to do their own research.

[bu villain]

By and large, the public believes anything the media says. Most dont take the time to do their own research.

Well since Fox News has the most viewers, I'm pretty sure the blame wouldn't all go to republicans then.