In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 878
Online now 1035 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
How about you find a quote, any quote, from Obama in which he explains to the public that his request for more tax revenue, whether it's the $600+ billion over ten years that he just received as part of the fiscal cliff deal or the additional $1 trillion over ten years that he now seeks, will come nowhere close to solving our debt/deficit problem? Perhaps something along the lines of Obama explaining that the $1.6 trillion in tax revenue over ten years ($160 billion per year) that he seeks in totality from the purported rich will only cover a little over a month of our borrowing, so the real trick to this "balanced approach" he touts is going to be to identify and implement the significant amont of spending cuts that are needed.
This post was edited by Bradleyfan 14 months ago
Everything Obama does or wants to do incrementally implodes the GDP. Tax revenue on 1% are 5 times lower than on 5%. Explain that to Obama and he would likely want to raise taxes on the rich by 5x.
Fine, if the last one wasn't the last one, who's to say this round of tax increases is if the republicans cave again?
Ok. Find me one quote, again, from any single person that says "if the republicans cave on this round of tax increases, it will solve the deficit."
You have to understand the context. In context, it is what he said.
Are the Rs proposing $300/400B in cuts per annum, because if not they aren't solving anything either.
There's two things, a short term rift between current expenditures and receipts partially due to spending levels and partially due to poor economic growth and historically low tax rates, and a long term entitlement spending problem. The long term issue is going to require huge structural changes that will be forced upon an electorate that does not want them. The current issue will require some sort of raise in taxes and cut in spending, as well as better economic growth.
We can argue all day (or in this case, all year) about which approach is more effective but both have historical evidence on their side, and the idea that combining equal amount of spending cuts to tax increases is not radical in any way, especially in a climate of divided government (and really, Ds 2 to 1). Saying "we have a spending problem" while ignoring that we have a revenue problem is just as disingenuous as ignoring the fact that spending levels are historically high.
Getting a D president to ID appropriate spending cuts is as likely as a R speaker to ID appropriate tax increases. And it's that much harder when the voting public doesn't want to see either.
I agree with almost all of what you said, but the idea that because Obama is a democrat (or for that matter "all democrat presidents") can't be bothered with needed spending cuts is just too much if a cop out for me. "Oh well, wait for the next 'pub to make the really hard, politically unpopular decisions..."
Woodward fucking up the president's lying stance.
And not to be all John Thompson/Gary about it, but don't the D's owe cuts to match the tax increase they just got?
The House passed two bill that included significant spending cuts and Medicare reform. Anyone that looks at the numbers honestly and undertsands them knows Medicare is the issue. SS is a five minute fix -- increase the age requirement, add in some means testing and cpi indexing and you're close to being done. All this talk of balanced approaches and taxing the rich are nice talking points for the masses but they are Kabuki Theater as they don't come close to solving our problems. Even this horrific sequester that may end the world doesn't come close to solving our fiscal problem. The House has passed two bills already that reform Medicare and cut significant spending and in the next couple of months they will pass a third one that will also include SS reform. What have Obama and the Dems done?
It takes leadership to go against your base on big issues, like Josh Kraushner was discussing in the National Journal article I posted yesterday. Obama had a shot after the election to put together a true "balanced approach" that included tax revenue with entitlement reform and tax reform. Sure his base would fight the entitlement reform, but the Pub base would fight added tax revenue. Entitlement reform has to be done and it only gets tougher the longer we wait. As the leader of the entire Country, not just the dems, Obama should recognize this and stop pushing reform down the road for someone else to resolve when the remedy will inflict more pain on the Country. That's leadership and what we should expect from someone that runs our Country.
Would you prefer a big, or a little tapeworm living in your intestines?
You're talking about two different things. Nobody's plan to reform Medicare or SS will have bupkiss to do with the current deficit, which is what Obama is talking about when says "balanced approach," etc. He's not talking about a balanced approach to reform Medicare because there isn't one, you make beneficiary cuts within the program or your destroy it and turn it into premium support, there are no other ways. They know this.
Yes, another Washington reporter who lives in this made up centrist bubble. Boehner walked away from those negotiations with Obama, remember, but oh noes it's his fault!
I found this discussion instructive.
And trying to deal with the deficit without addressing entitlements is meaningless. It means bupkiss. it's Kabuki theater. Entitlements drive our deficit every year and our increasing overall debt. And these costs are only going up. So you can argue all you want about what Obama's "balanced approach" does or doesn't mean with respect to the current budget, but without real entitlement reforms it's meaningless, it's small ball, it's not a long term solution. How about Obama show some leadership and address the real driver of our spending/debt/deficit -- entitlements. It isn't rocket science.
Here's a place for Obama to start, instead of trying to scare the public over the sequester, why doesn't he explain to them that if we don't get our entitlement spending under control, then it will eventually crowd out our ability to pay for the very types of things he's now talking about the sequester harming and more.
Give me a freaking break Paul. You're posting Ezra Klein citing to Divid Brooks. How many times do people have to cite the record to you about Obama last minute demand for more revenue from Boehner that blew that deal up before you will believe. I've got to much work today to waste on this but google BoB Woodward on this and you'll find it. At some point you are going to have to come to realization that Obama doesn't want to deal with our spending/entitlement problem. Heck he still can't even admit we have spending problem, so why would anyone believe he wants to remedy it?
Blame the messenger, of course. It was a good discussion on the cognitive dissonance between reality and the centrist types who just can't for the life of them figure out why Obama is such a meanie to the Rs. But nevermind that, why don't you post some more Heritage Foundation bullshit that you prefer.
As for Boehner, I was talking about in December when they were negotiating the fiscal cliff. Boehner walked away, again. The first time he had an excuse, but the second time?
Learn the difference between short term and long term, please. These "small ball" measures on taxes and cuts and a balanced approach of both are what can make a difference RIGHT NOW. The fight over entitlements is a fight over how to finance the 2020s, and its a discussion that should be had, but not one that has the immediate effects you think it would.
But that's the thing with today's conservatives, conflating the short term with the long term, because they can't name the cuts they want in the budget right now because they'll be painful. No, they want to talk big about entitlements and stuff and force Obama to make the current discretionary and defense cuts, because they can then bludgeon him with them in the midterms and beyond. It's playing politics, just like they accuse Obama of.
You're obviously smarter than this.
American people: OMG, BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!!1111
Oh, but...you know...don't actually cut any spending but foreign aid!
"Pew did find a partisan divide. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support cuts in most areas, save for military spending. But there were only two areas where a majority of Republican respondents were willing to support cuts: unemployment benefits (56 percent) and foreign aid (70 percent). Meanwhile: 'There is no program among the 19 included in the survey that even a plurality of Democrats wants to see decreased.'"
And you wonder why I laugh at the public's big dick-swinging about budgets.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
It's comical that you get mad because Obama's not destroying the country fast enough.
I think that's accurate, but when WILL the conversation be had to putting entitlements on a sustainable path so that they don't blow up the deficit and economy in 10 years? I don't like this governing from crisis to crisis, but if politicians feet aren't held to the fire on this, is there any evidence that they'll have the stomach to attack it on their own?
Probably when someone running for president on entitlement reform wins.
Dems have been building the welfare state for half a century, what's the incentive to unilaterally start blowing it up? If Obama agrees to benefit cuts/privatizing SS or Medicare today, what thanks does he get other than a few nice David Brooks columns? It's not like Rs are going to go into the midterms saying "Wow, Obama is so great for reforming entitlements, but you should vote out Ds anyway." It's not like seniors who are now paying more for health care and getting less in SS are going to rush to the polls to vote for his party. It's not like people in their 40s are going to vote D now that they know they'll eventually be paying more/getting less when they retire.
Obama didn't run on reforming this stuff (his opponent did and lost), but I think he'd do it if the Rs would give him incentive. He's gotten none. A measly $600B in taxes ain't gonna do it. If that continues, let President Rubio deal with that shit and we'll thank him and his party by beating them in every election for the next decade. That's just reality.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports