If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Democrats are worried that President Obama may listen to the US public's response in the last set of elections and reach across party lines/consider compromising with the GOP   (csmonitor.com) divider line 131
    More: Asinine, President Obama, republicans, GOP leaders, Democrats, Capitol Hill in Washington, party lines, 112th United States Congress, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty  
•       •       •

466 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Nov 2010 at 1:37 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-30 09:43:36 AM  
"When we have such a huge deficit, we simply cannot give tax breaks to the wealthiest in this country," says Sen. Bernard Sanders (I) of Vermont. "I hope the president draws a clear line that we are not going to cut Social Security or raise the retirement age."

If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.
 
2010-11-30 10:18:16 AM  
republicans do not compromise. they have one goal: destroy obama.

why he would even consider meeting with them is beyond me.
 
2010-11-30 10:23:12 AM  
tuffsnake: If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.

Of course we should. I'm liberal as hell, but it needs to be raised a couple years at least. Plus means testing. Of course, the income cutoff should be doubled as well, which conservatives would hate.

FlashHarry: republicans do not compromise. they have one goal: destroy obama.

Exactly. It's a kabuki theater. Obama, though, will be voluntarily bipartisan: he'll do the more reasonable conservative ideas, and leave the Republicans with nothing to use as their platform except crazy sh*t. Which is 75% of their platform anyways.
 
2010-11-30 10:36:50 AM  
hillbillypharmacist: tuffsnake: If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.

Of course we should. I'm liberal as hell, but it needs to be raised a couple years at least. Plus means testing. Of course, the income cutoff should be doubled as well, which conservatives would hate.


They should base retirement age (for Social Security) on an individual's life expectancy.

That way. black men would be able to retire early, while white women would have to wait until their early 70's to retire.

/whistles innocently.
 
2010-11-30 10:38:16 AM  
To sum up:

Obama: We are all Americans, united. There is no "red" America, no "blue" America, there is only the United States of America. Let put politics aside to get important work done

Republicans: F*ck off and die, you Muslim Kenyan Socialist.
 
2010-11-30 10:38:36 AM  
Snarfangel: That way. black men would be able to retire early, while white women would have to wait until their early 70's to retire.

ha ha ha ha
 
2010-11-30 10:40:27 AM  
tuffsnake: "When we have such a huge deficit, we simply cannot give tax breaks to the wealthiest in this country," says Sen. Bernard Sanders (I) of Vermont. "I hope the president draws a clear line that we are not going to cut Social Security or raise the retirement age."

If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.


And the Party of No is now the minority party of Democrat. I'm shocked. Shocked that partisan politics is going on in...um...political circles.
 
2010-11-30 10:40:37 AM  
He didn't listen to Democrats telling him not to do that in 2008 so I'm pretty sure he's just going to keep doing the same shiat he's been doing
 
2010-11-30 10:48:08 AM  
It's like Sally looking out the window and seeing Charlie Brown line up to kick the football Lucy is holding -- again.
 
2010-11-30 11:00:04 AM  
Please do reach across party lines and compromise.

But if "compromise" means giving the rich another tax cut while taking away the mortgage interest deduction and the employer health care tax credit, and Obama signs a bill like that, then I'm not voting in the next presidential election.

Compromise =/= continuing to assrape the middle class.

Also, republicans, how do you like that every proposal the GOP has come up with to fix the deficit is squarely aimed at the middle class? Is that what you voted for?
 
2010-11-30 11:02:41 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: Also, republicans, how do you like that every proposal the GOP has come up with to fix the deficit is squarely aimed at the middle class? Is that what you voted for?

There is no price to great to pay for the glory of sticking it to the libs. Besides, if I talk all tough and bootstrappy it impresses people on the internet.
 
2010-11-30 11:05:35 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: Also, republicans, how do you like that every proposal the GOP has come up with to fix the deficit is squarely aimed at the middle class? Is that what you voted for?

Of course not. Republicans voting to rape the middle class is silly. Voting to empower the rich at the expense of the middle class is smart, though, considering they're going to be filthy rich one day.
 
2010-11-30 11:06:54 AM  
hillbillypharmacist: tuffsnake: If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.

Of course we should. I'm liberal as hell, but it needs to be raised a couple years at least. Plus means testing. Of course, the income cutoff should be doubled as well, which conservatives would hate.


Why is it no one is suggesting we just eliminate the cap on income taxable for Social Security? I'm sure that would make a whole lot more difference than pushing back benefits.
 
2010-11-30 11:13:10 AM  
vernonFL: To sum up:

Obama: We are all Americans, united. There is no "red" America, no "blue" America, there is only the United States of America. Let put politics aside to get important work done

Republicans: F*ck off and die, you Muslim Kenyan Socialist.


That's been my observation.
 
2010-11-30 11:13:51 AM  
UNC_Samurai: hillbillypharmacist: tuffsnake: If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.

Of course we should. I'm liberal as hell, but it needs to be raised a couple years at least. Plus means testing. Of course, the income cutoff should be doubled as well, which conservatives would hate.

Why is it no one is suggesting we just eliminate the cap on income taxable for Social Security? I'm sure that would make a whole lot more difference than pushing back benefits.


Sounds good to me, and the Republics should go for it since they want flat tax
 
2010-11-30 11:14:22 AM  
UNC_Samurai: Why is it no one is suggesting we just eliminate the cap on income taxable for Social Security? I'm sure that would make a whole lot more difference than pushing back benefits.

Well, if you're means testing, then it makes sense to make the cutoff at the same cutoff of the means testing.

And there's an infinite number of ways to do means testing... I think means testing should simply be that anyone making over $200k per year doesn't get SS that year.
 
2010-11-30 11:14:35 AM  
Mr. Coffee Nerves: It's like Sally looking out the window and seeing Charlie Brown line up to kick the football Lucy is holding -- again.

EXACTLY.

Goddammit so much.
 
2010-11-30 11:15:10 AM  
tuffsnake: Sounds good to me, and the Republics should go for it since they want flat tax

ha ha ha sure they would.

Hell, I'd go for a flat tax myself. 25% of everything you make over $80k.
 
2010-11-30 11:15:40 AM  
UNC_Samurai: Why is it no one is suggesting we just eliminate the cap on income taxable for Social Security? I'm sure that would make a whole lot more difference than pushing back benefits.

I'll suggest it right here.
 
2010-11-30 11:18:00 AM  
vernonFL: To sum up:

Obama: We are all Americans, united. There is no "red" America, no "blue" America, there is only the United States of America. Let put politics aside to get important work done

Republicans: F*ck off and die, you Muslim Kenyan Socialist.


Pretty much this.

What a possible reason for the Republicans' reluctance to compromise with President Obama might look like:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
adams.lps.org

It may or may not be THE reason, but it's plausible.
 
2010-11-30 11:29:07 AM  
vernonFL: We are all Americans, united. There is no "red" America, no "blue" America, there is only the United States of America.

god, that sounds so naive now. in reality, we're becoming more like the morlocks and eloi every day. how embarrassing.
 
2010-11-30 11:41:59 AM  
Give the rich folks their permanent tax cut with the rest of us.

Eliminate the Social Security and Medicare income caps for contributions. They want "equal" tax breaks with everyone else? They can pay ALL payroll taxes then.

Make the SS retirement age float year to year, and set it at 90% of the individual's total life expectancy at birth using actuarial evidence and adjusting for race and gender. So if your life expectancy is 80, for example, your retirement age is 72. If your life expectancy is 70, you can retire at 63. This adjusts for conditions that may not be alterable by the individual, and adds fairness to the program.

Means test both SS and Medicare. Those with significant income/wealth over the average (call it, say, 3X) get reduced SS payouts, and have to pay larger Medicare deductibles before the insurance kicks in. Unfair, you say? Go screw. Social Security was intended as a SAFETY NET, not "extra greens fees".

Raise the estate tax exemption to 2 million dollars, set the rate at 40% of everything OVER that. Have the exemption float with inflation after that.

Tax capital gains at the same rate as income, but treat them like a house sale -- if those gains are reinvested in publicly traded stocks/bonds/etc. within 30 days, they get taxed at a much lower rate.

Means testing for all tax breaks/exemptions/credits. Start at 3X the average individual (or family, depending on filing status) income, and gradually reduce all breaks/exemptions/credits to zero.

Tie in the Earned Income Tax Credit with community service hours. If you get free money from the government, you're going to volunteer for your community.

See? No increases in any tax rates except cap gains, and that one has a loophole that's good for the economy. Sure, we're closing up a bunch of other loopholes as well, but sacrifices have to be made.
 
2010-11-30 11:43:00 AM  
hillbillypharmacist: Of course we should. I'm liberal as hell, but it needs to be raised a couple years at least. Plus means testing. Of course, the income cutoff should be doubled as well, which conservatives would hate.

For what it is worth, the life expectancy argument is a bit of red herring. The main reason that the life expectancy is ticking up is not that old people are dying at an older age in a statically significant way but rather that not as many babies are dying. From the year 1920 up until today, American baby deaths have dropped from one hundred in a thousand to 10.9 in a thousand. That is what is skewing life expectancy upward.
 
2010-11-30 11:43:09 AM  
Obama has been trying to compromise with Republicans since day 1 and the Party of No has simply refused. The GOP's idea of compromise is "give us everything we want".

President Obama may listen to the US public's response in the last set of elections and reach across party lines/consider compromising with the GOP

The "US public" votes against whichever party is in power when the economy sucks. It doesn't make the steaming pile of shiat that is the GOP's platform any better. Hell, they hardly have any ideas. Their main plan is still tax cuts for rich people. Their declared purpose isn't to focus on the economy or any of our other pressing issues. It's to get Obama out of office.

tuffsnake
If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.

Huh? SS is not why we have a huge deficit right now. In fact currently SS is still taking in more than it's paying out. That will change around 2015.
 
2010-11-30 11:43:34 AM  
FlashHarry: vernonFL: We are all Americans, united. There is no "red" America, no "blue" America, there is only the United States of America.

god, that sounds so naive now. in reality, we're becoming more like the morlocks and eloi every day. how embarrassing.


I was thinking Mystics and Skeksis, but yeah.
 
2010-11-30 11:50:46 AM  
patrick767: tuffsnake
If we have such a huge deficit maybe we ought to consider cutting SS or raising the retirement age.

Huh? SS is not why we have a huge deficit right now. In fact currently SS is still taking in more than it's paying out. That will change around 2015.


Well that's hard to say since the money doesn't go into a SS fund but into the general fund
 
2010-11-30 11:54:03 AM  
sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2010-11-30 12:02:09 PM  
tuffsnake
Well that's hard to say since the money doesn't go into a SS fund but into the general fund

No, it's not hard to say. It's factual (new window). And no, it's not going into the general fund. The excess money is in the SS trust fund. In 2015 payouts will permanently fall below the amount collected. By 2025 the interest earned by the trust fund will be used up. By 2037, the principal will be exhausted. These estimates are all assuming nothing changes between now and then, of course.
 
2010-11-30 12:10:44 PM  
patrick767: tuffsnake
Well that's hard to say since the money doesn't go into a SS fund but into the general fund

No, it's not hard to say. It's factual (new window). And no, it's not going into the general fund. The excess money is in the SS trust fund. In 2015 payouts will permanently fall below the amount collected. By 2025 the interest earned by the trust fund will be used up. By 2037, the principal will be exhausted. These estimates are all assuming nothing changes between now and then, of course.


Hey, I agree with you - that is correct. On the other hand, that trust fund has literally been raided for other projects. It isn't all there. And we'll never get the Congress to pay back the trust fund with money out of the general fund - no matter who is in power.
 
2010-11-30 12:17:10 PM  
Andyr2120: patrick767: tuffsnake
Well that's hard to say since the money doesn't go into a SS fund but into the general fund

No, it's not hard to say. It's factual (new window). And no, it's not going into the general fund. The excess money is in the SS trust fund. In 2015 payouts will permanently fall below the amount collected. By 2025 the interest earned by the trust fund will be used up. By 2037, the principal will be exhausted. These estimates are all assuming nothing changes between now and then, of course.

Hey, I agree with you - that is correct. On the other hand, that trust fund has literally been raided for other projects. It isn't all there. And we'll never get the Congress to pay back the trust fund with money out of the general fund - no matter who is in power.


I am not sure that Congress can stop it. The trust fund "invests" in T-Bonds or other Treasury issues. Unless the US wants to default on those obligations, the Treasury will have to pay out on maturity.
 
2010-11-30 12:18:14 PM  
Andyr2120
Hey, I agree with you - that is correct. On the other hand, that trust fund has literally been raided for other projects. It isn't all there. And we'll never get the Congress to pay back the trust fund with money out of the general fund - no matter who is in power.

I don't have a source handy saying it has or hasn't been raided, but the 2025 and 2037 estimates above are based on how much is there.

Here's another budget balancing tool where you can play with the numbers and see how to balance the budget in 2015 and 2030. I just don't like how there's virtually no explanation of the impact of the cuts and tax increases you can check off:

Budget Puzzle (new window)
 
2010-11-30 12:43:36 PM  
As near as I can tell, that's exactly the opposite of "the US public's response in the last set of elections." The Republicans voted in candidates that were, for the most part, hard line, no compromise "conservatives". The Democrats, for the most part, didn't vote for the blue dogs. The American public doesn't seem to want compromise.
 
2010-11-30 12:59:43 PM  
timujin: As near as I can tell, that's exactly the opposite of "the US public's response in the last set of elections." The Republicans voted in candidates that were, for the most part, hard line, no compromise "conservatives". The Democrats, for the most part, didn't vote for the blue dogs. The American public doesn't seem to want compromise.

That's correct. Anybody who wants to lead us (Obama or otherwise) needs their head examined.
 
2010-11-30 01:29:13 PM  
dahmers love zombie: Means test both SS and Medicare. Those with significant income/wealth over the average (call it, say, 3X) get reduced SS payouts, and have to pay larger Medicare deductibles before the insurance kicks in. Unfair, you say? Go screw. Social Security was intended as a SAFETY NET, not "extra greens fees".

It's a hard sell, because hordes have been convinced that Social Security is some sort of savings plan rather than INSURANCE.

I mean, you don't "get back" the money you "paid in" for fire insurance all those years if your house doesn't end up burning down, y'know?
 
2010-11-30 01:43:02 PM  
That headline is hilarious.

In a "crying on the inside, I guess" kind of way.
 
2010-11-30 01:43:27 PM  
whall.org
 
2010-11-30 01:43:49 PM  
How farking obvious is it that in order to get the deficit under control, we'll have to (a) cut some entitlement spending, (b) cut some defense spending, (c) raise some taxes?

Jesus farking Christ, stop dicking around, sit down, and figure out the numbers you farking halfwits. I don't really care which side is to blame, just get it done and shut up with the whargarrbl.
 
2010-11-30 01:44:42 PM  
Worried? I am? This is what worried feels like?

Wow, it's so much like jaded.
 
2010-11-30 01:47:35 PM  
I don't agree with the Democrats about much, but they sure got a farkin' when they elected Obama. Much like the farkin' conservatives got with Bush II.

farkin's for everybody!
 
2010-11-30 01:47:57 PM  
vernonFL: Obama: We are all Americans, united. There is no "red" America, no "blue" America, there is only the United States of America. Let put politics aside to get important work done Republicans: F*ck off and die, you Muslim Kenyan Socialist.

FTFA:

"Weekly bipartisan leadership meetings between the White House and congressional leaders were the norm in the 1960s and '70s. "President Nixon held weekly, bipartisan leadership meetings with members of Congress. Clinton held monthly meetings," says Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 'Obama is not doing it at all.'"

The truth is that Obama, despite his rhetoric about bipartisanship, has governed as an extremely partisan president, and has shown little interest in working with Republicans. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, inasmuch as he really didn't have to, though it's unfortunate that so many of his supporters actually bought into the rhetoric. Now, though, he has no choice but to be truly bipartisan, since nothing whatsoever can be done unless both parties consent to it. This may be a good thing.
 
2010-11-30 01:48:17 PM  
hillbillypharmacist: Of course we should. I'm liberal as hell, but it needs to be raised a couple years at least. Plus means testing. Of course, the income cutoff should be doubled as well, which conservatives would hate.

That would be a good start.
 
2010-11-30 01:49:17 PM  
Edsel: How farking obvious is it that in order to get the deficit under control, we'll have to (a) cut some entitlement spending, (b) cut some defense spending, (c) raise some taxes?

Jesus farking Christ, stop dicking around, sit down, and figure out the numbers you farking halfwits. I don't really care which side is to blame, just get it done and shut up with the whargarrbl.


What is entitlement spending? Is that where I have a contract with the government, that they can take some of my money and invest it, so that I can have a pension? I guess I am entitled to my money now that... Hey wait - the money I worked for is gone, who took it? Not me, so that means the people who took it must give it back to me, right? Hey why are you raising my retirement age?

If you raise the retirement age or cut back on retirement benefits you are nothing but a thief. Or, you are helping the thieves.
 
2010-11-30 01:49:20 PM  
itazurakko: It's a hard sell, because hordes have been convinced that Social Security is some sort of savings plan rather than INSURANCE.

Because it's sold by politicians (on both sides) as both. It can't be both.
 
2010-11-30 01:49:53 PM  
Will the Republicans listen to the DOD studies they wanted and let gats serve openly?
 
2010-11-30 01:50:18 PM  
Bennie Crabtree: If you raise the retirement age or cut back on retirement benefits you are nothing but a thief.

Look up "grandfathering".
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2010-11-30 01:51:20 PM  
The GOP won't do anything that sounds like the word "compromise".

The GOP's campaign has been basically "Whatever Obama does, we disagree with" and the dumbfark voters of America bought it. Now, when they won the House, they will continue to say "We will talk about compromise", while stalling until 2012, where they can run ads attacking Obama because he wasn't willing to talk to them about compromise.
 
2010-11-30 01:54:41 PM  
GoldSpider: Bennie Crabtree: If you raise the retirement age or cut back on retirement benefits you are nothing but a thief.

Look up "grandfathering".


You're arguing that grandfathering would be stretched decades out, since those of us in our 40s have paid extra tax on SS to fix the shortfall for our entire working lives?

Or are you just blowing smoke up our collective asses?
 
2010-11-30 01:57:37 PM  
Obama needs to take a weekend and do some peyote.
 
2010-11-30 01:59:45 PM  
Xivero: vernonFL: Obama: We are all Americans, united. There is no "red" America, no "blue" America, there is only the United States of America. Let put politics aside to get important work done Republicans: F*ck off and die, you Muslim Kenyan Socialist.

FTFA:

"Weekly bipartisan leadership meetings between the White House and congressional leaders were the norm in the 1960s and '70s. "President Nixon held weekly, bipartisan leadership meetings with members of Congress. Clinton held monthly meetings," says Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 'Obama is not doing it at all.'"

The truth is that Obama, despite his rhetoric about bipartisanship, has governed as an extremely partisan president, and has shown little interest in working with Republicans. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, inasmuch as he really didn't have to, though it's unfortunate that so many of his supporters actually bought into the rhetoric. Now, though, he has no choice but to be truly bipartisan, since nothing whatsoever can be done unless both parties consent to it. This may be a good thing.


Correct. I'll further add that past history has shown that Obama does not compromise. He instead compromises to find the minimum amount of votes needed to pass legislation, and nothing more. In fact, he has been quite stubborn in refusing to compromise any further than this.

So far, this has meant that Democrats have had to compromise within their own party. And then pick up 1 or 2 moderate Republican Senators. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens next year.
 
2010-11-30 01:59:47 PM  
itazurakko: dahmers love zombie: Means test both SS and Medicare. Those with significant income/wealth over the average (call it, say, 3X) get reduced SS payouts, and have to pay larger Medicare deductibles before the insurance kicks in. Unfair, you say? Go screw. Social Security was intended as a SAFETY NET, not "extra greens fees".

It's a hard sell, because hordes have been convinced that Social Security is some sort of savings plan rather than INSURANCE.

I mean, you don't "get back" the money you "paid in" for fire insurance all those years if your house doesn't end up burning down, y'know?


If it is and always have been insurance, what exactly are the terms for payoff? Is it means-tested? Do you have to verify that you'd LIKE to work, but no one will hire your wrinkled ass? Is there some sort of physical you have to pass?

Did you hear the acronym SSI and it confused you?

Do go ahead and show me how it's an insurance plan, won't you? Make sure you include the "what triggers plan payoff" explanation.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report