Exactly where is this Democratic Budget proposal located so that we can critique it?

(03-12-2013 02:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:57 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:54 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Thank you, Paul Ryan. It takes a real swell fella to put out a losing budget proposal a second time. You helped President Obama and Democrats in Congress cruise to victory in 2012 with your extreme budget, now you're going to help the Democrats set up the GOP for midterm losses with the same tool. Thank you sooooooo much.

The entire premise of your post is meritless since O has put for a budget that didn't receive a single vote from his own party.

You clearly don't have a grasp on what the premise is. Keep trying. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Wow. You really must be stupid. You clearly state that Ryan's last budget paved the way to an Obama victory in 2012 and now think this 'extreme' budget will do the same for the midterm elections.

Obama's last budget was so extreme he couldn't even get a single vote, not even from a democrat. O won the election. Thereby an 'extreme' budget proposal has no bearing on the upcoming election.

If you meant to say something else, by all means say it.

Oh find me a copy of the president or democrats budget. I'll wait patiently.

(03-12-2013 02:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 02:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:57 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:54 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Thank you, Paul Ryan. It takes a real swell fella to put out a losing budget proposal a second time. You helped President Obama and Democrats in Congress cruise to victory in 2012 with your extreme budget, now you're going to help the Democrats set up the GOP for midterm losses with the same tool. Thank you sooooooo much.

The entire premise of your post is meritless since O has put for a budget that didn't receive a single vote from his own party.

You clearly don't have a grasp on what the premise is. Keep trying. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Wow. You really must be stupid. You clearly state that Ryan's last budget paved the way to an Obama victory in 2012 and now think this 'extreme' budget will do the same for the midterm elections.

Obama's last budget was so extreme he couldn't even get a single vote, not even from a democrat. O won the election. Thereby an 'extreme' budget proposal has no bearing on the upcoming election.

If you meant to say something else, by all means say it.

Oh find me a copy of the president or democrats budget. I'll wait patiently.

Do you righties sit around and eat paint chips as children? That's about the only thing that could explain the amazing lack of cognitive abilities. Weak and/or false equivocations are common from the right. It's a defensive mechanism that keeps you all from having to face reality. Allow me to clue you into reality - Ryan's budget was a major issue in the last election that opened up right-wing candidates to all sorts of legitimate attacks. That led to the President cruising to an easy victory, Senate Democrats picking up seats in a cycle where they were initially predicted to possibly lose their majority, and Democrats in the House picking up seats following some major gerrymandering by the right. It was a very good election for the Democratic party. Midterms are usually very good to the opposition party, but your wonderboy just went and proposed a budget that again seeks to end Medicare, slashes aid for the poor by ungodly amounts, and eviscerates federal spending in a period of weak recovery. Any GOPer who votes for this will be bludgeoned with it next year. Democrats won't even have to spend money on new commercials, they can just run the same ones over again. That's great news for us on the left, but bad news for you righties.

Congrats for staying true to your principles, but too bad for you that most of America thinks those principles are insane. 2016 looks at this point to be incredibly friendly to Democrats, so thanks for helping us out in 2014. As long as we hold our ground then, we're in great shape to end the GOP as presently constituted by the end of the decade. I thought it would take until around 2030 to polish off the party, but I forget how dysfunctional the right is these days and how primed Democrats are to take advantage of that. Hillary is rated as the most popular politician in the nation right now, and she just positioned herself out of the firing line until the 2016 campaigns start to take shape. Go have a look at her hypothetical match-ups against all the likely GOPer nominees right now. She leads all GOPers - IN TEXAS - if that tells you how good she's positioned. While there's still lots of time, I'd much rather be far ahead than far behind.

So America is marching forward having just handed the GOPers big losses based largely on attacks fueled by the Ryan budget, and the natural GOP response is to reintroduce the same Ryan budget? Great thinking by the lead chippers. Again, thank you, Paul Ryan.

It's really quite simple. If you are all so damned insistent on balancing the budget immediately, then taxes will have to be raised. No elected official (well maybe other than Rand Paul) is going to sign onto enough cuts to make it happen without them.

So either shut up about Obama wanting some tax increases or stop bitching that the budget won't be balanced immediately.

What's "immediately"? Next year? In five years? In ten?

I can see raising taxes if we are trying balance the budget next year, or in five years. But in ten years? Needing to raise taxes is a stretch in the best of circumstances.

(03-12-2013 03:38 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 02:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 02:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:57 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:54 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Thank you, Paul Ryan. It takes a real swell fella to put out a losing budget proposal a second time. You helped President Obama and Democrats in Congress cruise to victory in 2012 with your extreme budget, now you're going to help the Democrats set up the GOP for midterm losses with the same tool. Thank you sooooooo much.

The entire premise of your post is meritless since O has put for a budget that didn't receive a single vote from his own party.

You clearly don't have a grasp on what the premise is. Keep trying. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Wow. You really must be stupid. You clearly state that Ryan's last budget paved the way to an Obama victory in 2012 and now think this 'extreme' budget will do the same for the midterm elections.

Obama's last budget was so extreme he couldn't even get a single vote, not even from a democrat. O won the election. Thereby an 'extreme' budget proposal has no bearing on the upcoming election.

If you meant to say something else, by all means say it.

Oh find me a copy of the president or democrats budget. I'll wait patiently.

Do you righties sit around and eat paint chips as children? That's about the only thing that could explain the amazing lack of cognitive abilities. Weak and/or false equivocations are common from the right. It's a defensive mechanism that keeps you all from having to face reality. Allow me to clue you into reality - Ryan's budget was a major issue in the last election that opened up right-wing candidates to all sorts of legitimate attacks. That led to the President cruising to an easy victory, Senate Democrats picking up seats in a cycle where they were initially predicted to possibly lose their majority, and Democrats in the House picking up seats following some major gerrymandering by the right. It was a very good election for the Democratic party. Midterms are usually very good to the opposition party, but your wonderboy just went and proposed a budget that again seeks to end Medicare, slashes aid for the poor by ungodly amounts, and eviscerates federal spending in a period of weak recovery. Any GOPer who votes for this will be bludgeoned with it next year. Democrats won't even have to spend money on new commercials, they can just run the same ones over again. That's great news for us on the left, but bad news for you righties.

Congrats for staying true to your principles, but too bad for you that most of America thinks those principles are insane. 2016 looks at this point to be incredibly friendly to Democrats, so thanks for helping us out in 2014. As long as we hold our ground then, we're in great shape to end the GOP as presently constituted by the end of the decade. I thought it would take until around 2030 to polish off the party, but I forget how dysfunctional the right is these days and how primed Democrats are to take advantage of that. Hillary is rated as the most popular politician in the nation right now, and she just positioned herself out of the firing line until the 2016 campaigns start to take shape. Go have a look at her hypothetical match-ups against all the likely GOPer nominees right now. She leads all GOPers - IN TEXAS - if that tells you how good she's positioned. While there's still lots of time, I'd much rather be far ahead than far behind.

So America is marching forward having just handed the GOPers big losses based largely on attacks fueled by the Ryan budget, and the natural GOP response is to reintroduce the same Ryan budget? Great thinking by the lead chippers. Again, thank you, Paul Ryan.

Damn. I read that expecting you to expound upon the Democrat budget. I won't argue your point..but..answer the question the challenge next time.

UMGrad is a theorist. Using his idiotic logic, the only way to get out of debt is to ramp up spending. Hey Grad! You fool! Has it worked the last 6 Gdamn years?

(03-12-2013 05:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  UMGrad is a theorist. Using his idiotic logic, the only way to get out of debt is to ramp up spending. Hey Grad! You fool! Has it worked the last 6 Gdamn years?

You make the mistake of thinking he cares about debt.

He's on record as saying that 6 more trillion in debt should have been double that. Somehow 6 couldn't do sh*t but 12, well, see, that's the magic number. Companies would have hired millions with a 22 trillion dollar debt. Hell, the U3 rate would have probably been in the negatives.

(03-12-2013 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It's really quite simple. If you are all so damned insistent on balancing the budget immediately, then taxes will have to be raised. No elected official (well maybe other than Rand Paul) is going to sign onto enough cuts to make it happen without them.

So either shut up about Obama wanting some tax increases or stop bitching that the budget won't be balanced immediately.

Except Ryan's plan has nothing to do with immediately balancing the budget. It does it over a decade... You know facts... They are fun..

(03-12-2013 09:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It's really quite simple. If you are all so damned insistent on balancing the budget immediately, then taxes will have to be raised. No elected official (well maybe other than Rand Paul) is going to sign onto enough cuts to make it happen without them.

So either shut up about Obama wanting some tax increases or stop bitching that the budget won't be balanced immediately.

Except Ryan's plan has nothing to do with immediately balancing the budget. It does it over a decade... You know facts... They are fun..

My reply was basically for the Obama comment in the OP. I wasn't referring directly to the Ryan plan.

(03-12-2013 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It's really quite simple. If you are all so damned insistent on balancing the budget immediately, then taxes will have to be raised. No elected official (well maybe other than Rand Paul) is going to sign onto enough cuts to make it happen without them.

So either shut up about Obama wanting some tax increases or stop bitching that the budget won't be balanced immediately.

Obama just got some tax increases. All the conservatives essentially got in return is the promise of future cuts. Don't you have the smallest bit of a problem with O demanding tax increases mere months after getting a round of increases?
I'm not bitching that the budget won't be balanced immediately. Tens years to reach a balanced budget isn't what I would call immediately anyways. You realize Ryan's budget only spends about 5T less than the current path we're on right?
Another large part of paying for a balanced budget comes from increases in tax revenues by reducing the rates for individuals and corporations. Its proven to work. It will put more people back to work and reduce the welfare rolls.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives know that the only way to responsibly balance the budget involves measures that won't be pleasant for everyone and are willing to endure those choices. Liberals would rather continue redistributing the wealth, and borrow money to pay for their entitlements in exchange for votes. It's shocking how many people are content to bury their heads in the sand and continue with business as usual, even if that means bankrupting the business.

IMO...Ryan's budget is unacceptable also. It also does not have deep enough cuts. Neither party has guts to do what really needs doing for fear of losing votes and fat cat donors to their campaigns. Politics as usual.

(03-13-2013 06:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It's really quite simple. If you are all so damned insistent on balancing the budget immediately, then taxes will have to be raised. No elected official (well maybe other than Rand Paul) is going to sign onto enough cuts to make it happen without them.

So either shut up about Obama wanting some tax increases or stop bitching that the budget won't be balanced immediately.

It's shocking how many people are content to bury their heads in the sand and continue with business as usual, even if that means bankrupting the business.

Shocking......... not to me. All one has to do is review the Hostess close-down. It's amazing that those folks (Obama is their champion) would rather enter the unemployment line than take a 10% pay cut to save the company. The parallel is to demand exactly the same benefits and Fed spending to get "theirs", until suddenly, when the crap hits the fan - they'll get nothing.

Obama and his crew don't care.......... they'll just fly off to some place that is solvent and live out their days because they are rich and part of the 1%.............

(03-12-2013 05:21 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  UMGrad is a theorist. Using his idiotic logic, the only way to get out of debt is to ramp up spending. Hey Grad! You fool! Has it worked the last 6 Gdamn years?

You make the mistake of thinking he cares about debt.

That's the key. Some in DC spending the money will eventually be gone so they don't care about the debt. It's not their money.

We have a real problem. This path is not sustainable. We will run out of somebody else's money at some point, and when we do it won't be pretty. As for balancing the budget having a negative effect on the economy, that's only if you assume that government can and will spend the money in ways that benefit the economy more than the private sector can or will. If the private sector were borrowing the $1 trillion a year that government is borrowing, or even simply bringing that much home from overseas, is it not likely that we would be experiencing greater growth than we are? Government doesn't create anything of value; all it can do is redistribute. Creating actual value is up to the private sector.

But that act of redistribution can be used to buy votes, and the more you redistribute the more votes you can buy. So both sides, instead of doing what is best for the country, are busy figuring out how to buy more votes. This is in large measure because we've made congress such a desirable place to be, with all the perks and that, so once there people will pretty much sell their soul to the devil. And because so many want into the club, it costs so much to get there, and that in turns puts those guys in debt to any special interest whose interest is special enough that they are willing to spend hunks of money to advance it.

We're not going to solve this problem by catering to special interests. We are going to have to:

1. Raise tax revenues (republicans hate this), but raising rates on upper incomes and corporations is the wrong way to do it (democrats hate that)
2. Reform entitlements (democrats hate this)
3. Cut defense spending (republicans hate that)
4. Cut non-defense discretionary spending (both gangs hate that)

As soon as people stop putting party ahead of country, we can make some real progress. That most likely means it will never happen.

(03-13-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We're not going to solve this problem by catering to special interests. We are going to have to:

1. Raise tax revenues (republicans hate this), but raising rates on upper incomes and corporations is the wrong way to do it (democrats hate that)
2. Reform entitlements (democrats hate this)
3. Cut defense spending (republicans hate that)
4. Cut non-defense discretionary spending (both gangs hate that)

As soon as people stop putting party ahead of country, we can make some real progress. That most likely means it will never happen.

THIS^^^^^

(03-13-2013 07:32 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 06:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It's really quite simple. If you are all so damned insistent on balancing the budget immediately, then taxes will have to be raised. No elected official (well maybe other than Rand Paul) is going to sign onto enough cuts to make it happen without them.

So either shut up about Obama wanting some tax increases or stop bitching that the budget won't be balanced immediately.

It's shocking how many people are content to bury their heads in the sand and continue with business as usual, even if that means bankrupting the business.

Shocking......... not to me. All one has to do is review the Hostess close-down. It's amazing that those folks (Obama is their champion) would rather enter the unemployment line than take a 10% pay cut to save the company. The parallel is to demand exactly the same benefits and Fed spending to get "theirs", until suddenly, when the crap hits the fan - they'll get nothing.

Obama and his crew don't care.......... they'll just fly off to some place that is solvent and live out their days because they are rich and part of the 1%.............

Regarding Hostess:

This is the poision that is the "Life should be fair" attitude which we teach our kids. The Hostess employees were pissed that they were being asked to take a cut when Management got a raise.

Yes that sucks but *life is not fair* so 5K union members cost 20K people their jobs because... "It's not fair"

The Adult thing to do would be to simply look for another job.

(03-13-2013 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We're not going to solve this problem by catering to special interests. We are going to have to:

1. Raise tax revenues (republicans hate this), but raising rates on upper incomes and corporations is the wrong way to do it (democrats hate that)
2. Reform entitlements (democrats hate this)
3. Cut defense spending (republicans hate that)
4. Cut non-defense discretionary spending (both gangs hate that)

As soon as people stop putting party ahead of country, we can make some real progress. That most likely means it will never happen.

Your ideas here and in another thread are spot on. It's not a difficult thing to do if the welfare of the country is the primary goal of both parties. Sadly, staying in power to advance political ideology has surpassed the welfare of the nation.

O just got what is in reality a pretty modest tax hike. $600B sounds like a lot, but in todays economic state, $600B doesn't buy what it used to. Lowering tax rates for corporations and job creators has lead to an increase in tax revenue nearly 100% of the time. Democrats don't understand that lowering the rate can lead to an increase in tax revenues most of the time. Here are a few examples.
Bush cut the capital gains tax from 20 to 15% in 2003. From 2003 to 2005 capital gains tax revenue doubled.
Bush cut the top corporate dividend tax rate from 40 to 15%. Dividends paid, and the taxes paid on them, rose dramatically.
Reagan cut taxes by 25% across the board and lowered the top rate from 70 to 28%. Federal revenue doubled.
Kennedy proposed tax cuts that were enacted after his death. A 25% cut in income tax rates lead to a 41% increase in tax revenue and economic growth of 50%.

Entitlements have to be reformed. They're a massive anchor being towed by the economy. Just this morning there was a story on the news about removing the work requirement from the food stamp program. Government entitlement programs have taken all responsibility from the individual and promised to take care of them in exchange for nothing. These massive programs will sink the US if solvent alternatives are not explored. Everyone, on both sides of the argument knows the the current path is unsustainable, yet their only course of action is to continually kick the can down the road.

Defense and non-discretionary spending have to be trimmed down in a responsible manner after taxes and entitlements are taken care of.

It isn't impossible to do any of this. It's just harder than shrugging the responsibility and leaving it for the next generation. IMO thats why the "old guard" has to go. Reid, Pelosi, Fienstien, Rangle, McCain, Graham, Waxman, Waters, Jones, Jackson Lee, King, Schumer, Boxer, Grassley, Baucus, Hatch, and a bunch I can't think of right now have served their time in public office and need to make way for the younger generation that will have to deal with many of the problems that the old guard have created for them.