Reply With Quote
That is not a legitimate offer. That is posturing to his base.
$1.6T in new revenue
Permanently eliminating the debt ceiling
$50B in infrastructure
for
$400B in en lement cuts
look at the balls on this mother er.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 11-30-2012 at 09:05 AM.
That is not a legitimate offer. That is posturing to his base.
Even blue teamers can't think that is a legitimate offer.
I know. Hence, the opening bid comment in the subject line. With republicans capitulating on revenues and running away from grover before he even made an opening bid, I'd feel emboldened to make an opening bid as one sided as that too.
Fine.
No ing way. Horrible idea.Permanently eliminating the debt ceiling
More.$50B in infrastructure
Multiply by 10.for
$400B in en lement cuts
Agree
That is another reason I despise Obama. He would rather posture for his base than actually govern. er acts like he is still running for re-election and still playing the class warfare game. $1 spending cuts for every $4 in tax increases? Really?
yes, a bad joke
"$50B in infrastructure"
?? should be about $2T.
"$400B in en lement cuts"
This ain't gonna happen. ACA already has plenty $720B in savings, and probably more.
It's not like there has been no posturing from the red team. Up until November 6 revenue was not even on the table.
Seems about right, although I disagree with you on abolishing the debt ceiling now that Boehmer thinks the US credit standing is a bargaining chip. If you don't want to spend money, Dont appropriate it.
Agree that red team need to give up on the tax cuts expiring on those over 250K. It's not the small business destroyer that red team claims it is and everyone knows it.
BTW, 1.4 trillion of new revenue is a of a lot more than just letting tax cuts for those over 250K expire. Sounds like he is going for cap gains and death taxes too.
Repugs have proposed nothing other that "increased revenue" while keeping tax rates the same, and ing over the 99%.
This is in stupid on his part. The $400B in en lement cuts must be some kind of joke.
Whoever said it a few posts above is right. The 1.4T in new revenue is fine if he's also cutting en lements by several trillion.
It's also remarkable that through all of this, neither party is entertaining the idea of cutting our out of control defense budget. It's painfully obvious the military industrial complex has all of Washington in its back pocket.
There are also rumblings of discontinuing new 401K's and converting the existing 401k's with the government snatching the cash and issuing "3% guaranteed return" US gov bonds that will pay out monthly when the people whose 401K's they confiscated retire.
Yeah, I don't think there is any chance of 401ks being nationalized.
It certainly goes along with the "war on rich people" rhetoric. Obama's base doesn't have 401K's.
Obama's war on rich people has been nothing other than rhetoric through 4 years though.
For all the tax hikes on rich people he's proposed, taxes are just as favorable for rich people now as they've ever been. I'm not sure why other liberals act like he's such a champion for the non-rich given his policies.
Hey. I'm his base and I have a 401k
Looks pretty clear to me that one way or the other he is gonna get his tax hikes on the "rich".Obama's war on rich people has been nothing other than rhetoric through 4 years though
For all the tax hikes on rich people he's proposed, taxes are just as favorable for rich people now as they've ever been. I'm not sure why other liberals act like he's such a champion for the non-rich given his policies.
Now that he doesn't have to worry about reelection... In all seriousness, the guy is a pragmatic centrist, which is why I like him.Obama's war on rich people has been nothing other than rhetoric through 4 years though
For all the tax hikes on rich people he's proposed, taxes are just as favorable for rich people now as they've ever been. I'm not sure why other liberals act like he's such a champion for the non-rich given his policies.
You don't want to trade your 401K for an IOU from the Federal government? Why don't you want to pay your fair share?Hey. I'm his base and I have a 401k
Not having a debt ceiling just makes it too easy to keep kicking the can down the road. As big a pain in the arse as the debt ceiling is, I definitely think we're better off having it than we would be without it.
Only took him 4 years when he had a majority in both houses for 2 of them
He's throwing the repugs a bone. His offer should be " You, I won, we do this my way".
I was listening to this on NPR and I thought it was backwards. 4 to 1 revenues to cuts? That's the opposite.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
