|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 8, 2013 19:46:18 GMT
My, my, my. I have NEVER in my life since such a control freak president as the one we have right now. NOT ONE hard question; NOT ONE!! He took his questions from a list of "pre-chosen" people (I never even heard of any of them) who he KNEW beforehand would give him nothing but softball questions. Not only did they kiss his butt.....they didn't even wipe it first!!
And he lied. What he says went on in the White House meeting is a big, fat lie. I would call on the president to release the written transcript of that meeting.......so that we can all see for ourselves that he's lying. What he did today is turn things around......claimed the Republicans said "my way or the highway," when we know it was the other way around.....because we know they already came down from their first proposal and their last proposal was NOT all that they wanted. He's offered nothing....and he's accepted not one portion of the 3 proposals that Republicans made. I guess he thinks that with the help of all that love him.....his liberal press......he's safe. At least Bush used to pick them right there on the floor.....based on hands up and yelling, "Mr. President" to get his attention. He got hard, challenging questions. But not Obama; he couldn't handle them.
The entire thing was a SLAM on Republicans. Beating them up; that's all it was. This was NO press conference. And when he was beating them up on the debt limit.....NOT one who would have questioned him on his 2006 vote to NOT raise the debt ceiling and calling the president at that time "unpatriotic" and a "poor leader" because of the debt was allowed to ask a question. Which, BTW, has doubled under Obama since he took over.....
I would be embarrassed if I were a Democrat who voted for this man!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 8, 2013 20:04:00 GMT
Sorry I missed it but we can be sure that the press will fact check any of his answers to questions. We'll see what shows up in the press.
BTW I thought that the President did agree with the $70 billion in spending cuts that the House Republicans proposed in their legislation. The House Republicans want spending cuts but they're already getting spending cuts from what I understand.
It's also my understanding that the President wants to get together with Congress to work on responsible deficit reduction after the debt ceiling is raised and a continuous resolution is passed to fund the government.
Of course from my perspective any deficit is unacceptable and we need to raise taxes and cut expenditure to achieve a balanced budget for 2014 but neither Republicans or Democrats are willing to do what it takes to accomplish that. Both sides just keep piling more and more debt on our children with no end in sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 8, 2013 20:53:18 GMT
You have more faith in our press/media than I do right now. Most are still so in love with this president, they believe everything he says and don't bother to call him on any of it.
And what kind of negotiations is saying...."give me everything I want up front and then I'll talk to you later?" Who does that? One certainly doesn't do that with this president.....as he doesn't keep his word.
BTW, he used words again today like "hostage takers" and "extremists,".......and threw fuel on the fire about government default. First off, he doesn't care what he as the president is doing to the markets. It is HIM that is going to be responsible for any affects on the markets after what he did today. But he doesn't care. It's all a game to him.
We are NOT going to default. We take in $225 BILLION each month in revenue......and to pay the interest on the debt, which is the only way we would default, costs $24 BILLION......that leaves over $200 BILLION. It's called prioritizing.....just like Americans across the country have to do each month when they pay their bills. IF this president were presidential, he would have been out there today assuring the world that the U.S. was NOT going to default on it's debt. But instead, he's tossing the fuel on to scare the markets.
Shame on him!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 9, 2013 11:16:31 GMT
You have more faith in our press/media than I do right now.
We are NOT going to default. We take in $225 BILLION each month in revenue......and to pay the interest on the debt, which is the only way we would default, costs $24 BILLION......that leaves over $200 BILLION. It's called prioritizing.....just like Americans across the country have to do each month when they pay their bills. IF this president were presidential, he would have been out there today assuring the world that the U.S. was NOT going to default on it's debt. But instead, he's tossing the fuel on to scare the markets.
We should note that the "deficits" are not constant month to month although those numbers are often used. For example the anticipated deficits are about $30 billion/mo for the next 12 months but the deficit for November is projected to be $130 billion. That's over four months of average deficits spending all occurring next month. It's like having to pay annual property taxes, car insurance, and health insurance all in the same month for a person. If those bills aren't paid then either the services are lost or there is a huge penalty for being late.
We know what will happen "long term" if the debt ceiling isn't increased because there are only four options.
Those are the choices and the only choices available to Congress if House Republicans refuse to approve a debt ceiling increase and fund the government.
I know what my priorities would be because I advocate a balanced budget and I believe I've revealed that in other posts. What I will ask, given those four options, what would you choose to do if the debt ceiling increase isn't approved?
PS Of course I'll reiterate my preferred choices if anyone else will stand up and declare theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Oct 9, 2013 12:32:42 GMT
Obama is acting like my 'former' wife. "First give me everything then when I get a minute maybe we'll talk about what you get to keep".
The LIB 'White Guilters' and of course the media and pretty much every Black in the country are terrified that the Black man they elected is turning out to be the worst President in American history.
These people will attack anyone as 'racist' for not agreeing with Obama's Socialist agenda. "They hate him because of his skin color".
Most REPs do not 'hate' Obama. They 'hate' the fact that he is a 'charismatic' naive 'poser' who had zero experience running a service station let alone the most powerful/wealthy country in the world. He 'gamed' the education system. He became a master at using 'White Guilt' to go places he was not qualified to go. That's why all his school records were sealed. He was able to affect an excellent S. Baptist drawl when he needed the Black vote. He learned how to hit all the right buttons. IMO he knows deep down he was in over his head when he ran for President and didn't really expect to beat Hillary. His hubris ended up bitting him on his butt. He knows his 'legacy' will be two terms as a international joke (Putin must still be laughing over Obama's flaccid dealings with Syria) and his multitude of failures domestically financial or social.
The REPs ought to be 'hating' themselves for not turning out to vote.
Anyway. America will never have another Black President again. And I mean ever. The rise in Latino voters and the influence of the Asians and East Indians means the Blacks had their only kick at the can.
The next twenty Presidents will either be White or Latino or Asian or East Indian.
Black cultures are failing all over the world. In fifty years Black history in America will only be a foot note.
All the 'inner city' ghettos will have been bulldozed down and turned into parks where hard working Latinos and Whites and Asians and East Indians can walk their dogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 9, 2013 14:05:08 GMT
I still haven't found a transcript of the news conference (and would appreciate a link if someone finds that) but have found this summary.
www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=278008
In this transcript it appears that Republicans might propose a "super-committee" similar to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in 2011 but we know that idea tanked. While a majority on the Committee approved the recommendations (11 of 18) there were enough Republicans to block the recommendations from becoming mandatory for Congress because of the implied support for the Affordable Care Act that even House Republicans admit is "off the table" for new deficit reduction negotiations. Even Tea Party favorite Sen Rand Paul supported the Commission's recommendations, for example, but voted against it because it didn't defund Obamacare.
What we also know is that deficit reduction CANNOT be accomplished in the next 8 days and driving the United States into a financial default is not acceptable.
Yes, we need to address reducing the deficits and we also know it is going to require tax increases as well has spending cuts. We know that Congress is going to be hard pressed to reach a compromise but we, the American People need to put our partisanship behind and demand that our Congressional Representatives, regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans also put partisanship behind and work out a compromise because not doing so is harmful to all but the very wealthy in America.
It's time for both Democrats and Republicans to listen to the 90% as opposed to the top 1% that fund their political campaigns and they need to address ALL of the 90% and not just roughly 1/3rd of Americans that belong to their political party.
First and foremost they need to fund government, raise the debt limit, and then engage in the process of negotiation and compromise. They need to put the horse in front of the cart.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Oct 9, 2013 20:13:56 GMT
"Yes we need to address reducing the deficits..........." The problem is the LIBs have been saying that for years and no one believes they are remotely interested in doing so.
"Yes yes I agree I need to stop maxing out the credit cards and I really want to do that but only this month I can't b/c l found an amazing promotion on a round trip to Vegas." Next month I promise I'm going to knuckle down and get serious about bringing down our credit card debt.
Let's just face it folks. The LIBs have no intention of "bringing down the debt........just as long as they can hang on to the fantasy that "if only the rich would just pay a little more in taxes everything will be fine."
The LIBs want America to be another Western European Socialist country. What none of them will ever admit to is Socialism has never worked in any European country. If you want to live in Sweden or Denmark be my guest.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 9, 2013 21:34:46 GMT
You have more faith in our press/media than I do right now.
We are NOT going to default. We take in $225 BILLION each month in revenue......and to pay the interest on the debt, which is the only way we would default, costs $24 BILLION......that leaves over $200 BILLION. It's called prioritizing.....just like Americans across the country have to do each month when they pay their bills. IF this president were presidential, he would have been out there today assuring the world that the U.S. was NOT going to default on it's debt. But instead, he's tossing the fuel on to scare the markets.
We should note that the "deficits" are not constant month to month although those numbers are often used. For example the anticipated deficits are about $30 billion/mo for the next 12 months but the deficit for November is projected to be $130 billion. That's over four months of average deficits spending all occurring next month. It's like having to pay annual property taxes, car insurance, and health insurance all in the same month for a person. If those bills aren't paid then either the services are lost or there is a huge penalty for being late.
We know what will happen "long term" if the debt ceiling isn't increased because there are only four options.
Those are the choices and the only choices available to Congress if House Republicans refuse to approve a debt ceiling increase and fund the government.
I know what my priorities would be because I advocate a balanced budget and I believe I've revealed that in other posts. What I will ask, given those four options, what would you choose to do if the debt ceiling increase isn't approved?
PS Of course I'll reiterate my preferred choices if anyone else will stand up and declare theirs.
I absolutely support a Balanced Budget Amendment!! States have it....so should the federal gov't. It should be rare to "borrow." But you're going to need to put pressure on your Democrat friends in D.C.-----because they have always fought it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 10, 2013 3:14:57 GMT
I absolutely support a Balanced Budget Amendment!! States have it....so should the federal gov't. It should be rare to "borrow." But you're going to need to put pressure on your Democrat friends in D.C.-----because they have always fought it.
www.scribd.com/doc/52020805/GOP-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-Text
Let's start with the most obvious flaw which is that this amendment proposal goes beyond being a "Balanced Budget Amendment" because it's also imposes a "Spending Limit" (i.e. 18% of GDP). This is a partisan position where Republicans want to limit spending as opposed to focusing on a balanced budget. I actually support lower government spending but know that we can't link the federal budget to the GDP.
Next is the obvious problem that we actually have two budgets based upon our statutory laws. We have "General Expenditures" that are funded with "General Tax Revenues" and we have "Social Security/Medicare" expenditures that are funded with "FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment" taxes. The entire national debt today is because of "General Expenditures" that exceeded "General Tax Revenues" and part of that debt, almost $3 trillion currently, is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. That is not of "our" choosing but instead was created before many of us were born in 1935.
Third is the fact that this only addresses the "Budget" and not "Off-Budget" expenditures authorized by Congress. We don't need to look back very far to see this problem exists because former President Bush funded both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars with "Emergency Spending Measures" that are "Off-Budget" expenditures.
In truth a "Balanced Budget Amendment" needs to address spending at the end of the budget year as opposed to in advance of it which brings us to the next problem. There are no provisions to increase revenue to pay for expenditures that exceed revenues. A "Balanced Budget Amendment" should have a mandate to increase tax revenues to pay for over-expenditures by the federal government.
Finally, the two-thirds majority rule is a joke. We can't even get a simply funding measure for spending through the House of Representatives where a majority already exists to pay already authorized expenditures. The "Two-Thirds" rule imposes a condition that will prevent the US government from responding in emergencies because the two major parties are so entrenched in their partisan agendas that we have gridlock in Congress where only a simply majority is required.
"Balanced Budget Amendments" always sound good but the problem is that as written they either introduce partisanship that will prevent ratification or they establish conditions that don't result in a balanced budget by balancing revenues with expenditures or they don't allow for necessary emergency spending because of the polarity of partisanship in the US Congress that hasn't worked together for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 10, 2013 11:19:41 GMT
One thing that it's nice to agree on is that we need a balanced budget but it doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment to achieve it. A rather simply change to how we impose taxation would do that and I've already made a proposal that would do that. Since on one wants to visit the thread on it and discuss it I'll provide a brief summary here.
General Taxation:
All income is to be treated identically regardless of source and regardless of the entity receiving the income and all income will be taxed at the identical tax rate.
There are no tax deductions per se but enterprises will be able to deduct the "cost of production" as only profit will be considered to be income. Dividends paid to stockholders by corporations will be considered a cost of production because they are income to the stockholder and taxes imposed against the individual or entity receiving the dividend.
The first $50,000 in income/profits are exempt from income taxes.
The tax rate is determined by the general expenditures authorized by Congress less borrowing by Congress authorized by Congress but borrowing must be repaid within five years and the tax rates adjusted to repay the borrowing.
FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment Taxation
The current 15.3% tax rate will be imposed on all gross income/profits with no upper limit caps on this taxation. This tax, when imposed on a corporation, will be paid into the Social Security accounts of the stockholders.
The 15.3% tax on the first $50,000 will be dedicated to individual diversified and age-adjusted private retirement investment accounts (similar to 401K's) and these funds will be vested in the individual.
All tax revenues above on income/profits above $50,000 will be used to pay the Social Security/Medicare benefits of the individuals.
Social Security retirement benefits will be (a minimum) of $25,000 per person or $30,000 per couple and will be the combined amount from private investment return from the individual Social Security accounts supplemented with government subsidies if/as required.
Medicare will be phased out and replaced with private health insurance as private investment accounts become the source of income for retirees. Limited subsidies will exist as required to ensure that the minimum $25,000 per individual or $30,000 per couple is retained. Medicaid will continue to exist for those that cannot afford health insurance and health services at all.
There is one "kicker" to this proposal though. The Congress, under it's authority in Article I Section 8 Clause 4 needs to re-value "species" coinage (lawful money of the United States) and then comply with the existing statutory law that requires the Federal Reserve and US Treasury to redeem promissory Federal Reserve notes in "Lawful Money" (i.e gold, silver and platinum coinage produced by the US Mint). Based upon known gold reserves of the US government I've estimated that the Congress would have to establish the "value of money" based upon a $5,000 gold one-ounce coin. The law should also require that government notes for borrowing can only be purchased with gold coinage or gold certificates (where the gold is on deposit to redeem the note) and NOT with a promissory note.
This eliminates artificial inflation of the monetary supply, privatizes Social Security over the next 40 year by increasing the personal wealth of ALL Americans, provide retirement benefits that would be at least 5-times greater than our current Social Security "welfare" benefits in the future, eliminates Medicare completely, AND BALANCES THE FEDERAL BUDGET IMMEDIATELY.
|
|
One certainly doesn't do that with this president.....as he doesn't keep his word. 
