In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 310
Online now 863 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.
Yeah, it is maddening.
Just found out this month my own personal (Independent Contractor) health insurance payments went up 18.4% next year.
"It's just so hard," Greivis said. "It's my heart, my love. Maryland made me who I am."
If you are all for it, what is your preferred plan for fiscal responsibility?
So, basically, it would take the debt ceiling vote from needing a simple majority and 60 votes in the House to needing a (veto-proof) 2/3 majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress. That's quite a jump, and just creates a way for Dems/Obama to get around Republicans have a majority in the House. In short, it's a way to rewrite the rules to get around the checks and balances of the Federal Government.
Exactly. Just blame it on the second-term President that won't be up for re-election.
This post was edited by RaiseHigh 16 months ago
So Paul, seriously, what IS your plan?
Your certainly bright enough to know that we can't keep banging up 1+ trillion dollar yearly deficits for perpetuaty.
Taxing our way out of it isn't an option (at least currently). There simply aren't enough rich people to tax.
Our spending has gone up 190% over the last 12 years (16% per annum).
Isn't the point of this thread to rationally discuss it?
Lately, anyone that doesn't agree with you is either "butthurt", crying, or crazy.
We're heading for annual Federal Spending that will be close to 4 trillion a year. That's 35% more than we can afford.
So, what's a rational approach to tackle this?
Our current approach is to keep printing money. Is that the Paul plan?
Not sure what you're trying to say here, and I'm not even sure it's relevant anyway.
Obama said that if they wanted to come after someone, they should go after him, not Rice. But unless he admits he directed her to lie in the press conference, I don't know why we should be looking to him and not her. She's responsible for her words and deeds unless directed by higher up. The only thing McCain et al. want to get to the bottom of is, why did she lie and who made the decision to do so?
I like when Dems say that long term entitlement reform should be dealt separately from the fiscal cliff talks. As if as soon as we get past the fiscal cliff they are all the sudden going to introduce this awesome new entitlement saving plan that they've been sitting on the past 4 years waiting to introduce.
Go away, KA!
If it's so easy to vote "no" on trillions of dollars of spending why aren't we already doing that?
I've been hearing this from most of my clients. All small business owners.
Yay Obamacare keeping those costs down.
Anyone who even glances at the rough numbers of debt and entitlement spending knows that we're either going to have to have significant, even painful tax cuts, or cutting entitlements.
Either way, you're taking money from people because the government has made promises it can't possibly keep. So the only question is, when do you want to deprive people of money...now, when they've just earned real money, or "later", when you can take theoretical money from their futures now?
Does anyone disagree? We're dealing with imaginary money when it comes to generational entitlement money, because everyone knows it doesn't really exist. We're just either on the hook to produce that money or Congress is on the hook to walk back what we're "entitled" to.
This post was edited by frode 16 months ago
Obamacare was a coverage bill not a cost savings bill. The fact that Obama and Dems peddled it, in part, as a cost savings bill was complete and utter nonsense and, at a minimum, extremely misleading to the public.
This post was edited by Bradleyfan 16 months ago
Our small group went up 20% this Fall. We passed on half to employees and ate half, but future increases will likely be passed on 100% and/or we'll be cutting 401k match. I told the folks who complained that they should at least be happy they're keeping Sandra Fluke in free IUDs.
Shit show in progress...how much will it cost to set up the exchanges for the 35 states who aren't going to set one up?
Only 15 states have told the federal government they plan to operate health insurance exchanges under Obamacare.
Considering how imbecile strains seem to predominate through the generations, the people of the future should be thanking Obama for this specific case, too.
You mean significant, even painful tax increases?
Saying something ultra-conservative when you meant to say the opposite.
Would that be a Frode-ian slip?
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
oops, sorry about that. Tax increases.
Obama leaving for vacation in a week
At times, I feel like we all talk past each other when we debate these issues. So for a second, I just want to take a step back and illuminate the perspective on the left, for those of you who consume news/analysis from the right, and might not understand where liberals are coming from. I'm not saying I agree with all of it etc., just thought those of you who spend so much time thinking about this might appreciate looking at the foundations of the opposing argument. This article does a good job articulating the left's side:
"The United States, in comparison with other advanced countries, has meager levels of social services, retirement benefits, and public infrastructure. It also has extremely high levels of income inequality. It is very hard to bring revenue and outlays closer into line without cutting programs that are already set at low levels and without also exacerbating income inequality. Raising taxes on the rich, within reason (and Democrats justifiably think that restoring a 39.6 percent top marginal tax rate is within reason) is the one way to avoid the basic conundrum. When your deficit-cutting options include grim choices like potentially raising the Medicare retirement age, or other things that could impose real pain to vulnerable people, every additional dollar that allows you to close the gap with less pain becomes precious."
It's an increasingly popular Republican theory.
Let's see. Assuming I'm made Roman Republic-style dictator for a day (because this would never ever pass), here's what I do.
I restore all tax rates to the Clinton rates. Then, using that revenue baseline (about $4T over next decade), lay out timetable for restructuring of the tax code to make it more efficient but still capture the same amount of revenue in a progressive fashion. But everyone's effective taxes go up. If America wants entitlements, it's time to start paying for them.
I would start with the Medicare cuts Obama laid out, then attach growth numbers to chained CPI, and begin means testing at the highest levels only. These changes would be stepped in over the next 5 years. The longer we wait, the less we save. (right, Paul Ryan?) I would also create some sort of commission to study ways to save costs within the single payer structure of Medicare, delivery-side savings, means testing, scaling benefit levels so that the elderly get better benefits since their costs are usually higher, etc.
For SS, I subscribe to Kevin Drum's plan:
Chained CPI and upping the payroll tax limit. On the latter...in 1977, Congress set the maximum income subject to payroll tax so that 90 percent of all income would be taxed. Since then, however, growing income inequality has pushed more and more income to top earners. Because of this, the payroll tax cap only captures 86 percent of all income today. We should return to Congress's original intent and phase in an increase in the payroll cap so that we once again tax 90 percent of all income. That will get us to 2050 or some ridiculous year even if we stood pat from now on.
With all that savings, I want extension of unemployment benefits for the 99ers, and the usual adjustments to the AMT and Doc Fix (though both should be wiped out by the above reforms), and I'd torpedo the ridiculous debt ceiling. And I have no problem with printing money, thems the breaks when you're a superpower.
I don't know how much I just saved but I'll just generally refer to it as an assload. And make sure I get a fine looking slave girl for my triumph on the Via Sacra!
Im cool with this if you get rid of the federal govts union...they'd be so much more productive if they had a match lit under their ass
A couple of points from the right for you to mull over. I'm not going to debate you on some of the liberal talking points you raise above, like say, income inequality, and, yes, I could raise reasonable counter arguments to all your points backed up with articles, etc. But let's set those aside and deal with a couple of very basic premises/points. First, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, many times by Terp11, raising the tax rates on the purported rich (there not really rich) to the 39.6% rate does nothing significant to addess our fiscal problem. Even if it has zero impact on our economy, which is debateble, it raises approximately $80 billion of new revenue. This country borrowed $172 billion in November. Obama is asking congress for $60 billion for Sandy relief. Do you see the point? This is not a real fix or even close to a fix.
Additionally, Boehner has put significant revenue on the table. He's been willing to include the reduction of loopholes and deductions on the purported rich that will generate the same revenue as if the rates are increased to the 39.6%. Obama won't accept this because it doesn't actually raise the rates -- even though it generates the same revenue. Why does it matter?
Finally, why do Libs assume that Pubs take pleasure in the fiscal exercise of cutting spending? No one likes to do it. I hate that things have to be cut -- but it's reality. The numbers are very clear on this, yet Obama and the Libs refuse to recognize this and instead resort to the the taxing the rich canard..
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Bradleyfan 16 months ago
You want extension of unemployment benefits for people who have gotten them for 99 weeks prior?
(note- much of what else is in there I'm for)
Finally an honest Dem about the relationship of taxes and entitlements.
Raising taxes doesn't pay for entitlements.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports