Bloomberg article on BHO assessment of 2010 lame duck session

• Apple

  

  According to the Bloomberg article, BHO "says recent weeks marked a 'Season of Progress'". After reading the article, I can't help but be pissed, again, at this man's arrogance.
  
  Link to article
  
  There are many more things I could say about virtually every statement BHO is quoted in this article as having said. However, the one statement that epitomizes the arrogance and blatant anti-American pro-Socialist sentiment that oozes from this administration was this, said just prior to His leaving for Hawaii on (another) vacation with Michelle and the girls:
  
  “I don’t think that over the long run we can afford a series of tax breaks for people who are doing very well and don’t need it,” Obama said.
  
  First off, this statement gives an underlying sentiment that the money people earn is actually money that the government allows them to have by not confiscating it, at the point of a gun, with taxes.
  
  "Don't Need it"??? Who is BHO to decide if the money that hard working people make is "needed" or not? Excuse me Mr. President, but this is the land of the FREE. It's not the land of "You can keep it if we let you".
  
  I can honestly say that I couldn't wait for the medics to arrive November 2, 2010. As the triage starts in 2011, we begin to prepare our great nation for the monumental task of ripping this cancer of a president and his administration from the heart of America in 2012 and begin the recovery we all so desperately need in 2013.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Liberals don't believe your money is yours. If you make X dollars (depends on the liberal), then you are morally obligated to give a certain amount to be used to help others less fortunate than you.
  
  This isn't a new stance for the Democrat Party. They've been going further and further down this road for a long time. I guess it just took a little longer for a lot of people to realize what they are really all about.
• derek bomar

  

  so because he wants to roll back the tax brackets to what they were during the Clinton years for the wealthy, he's a socialist? Got it. He's actually right, we can't afford tax breaks, for the rich. We can't afford them for the poor either. Everyone's taxes need to go up, and spending needs to be cut.
• Apple

  

  BHO is a socialist because he believes in his heart that the government has the right to take possessions and wealth from "people who are doing very well and don’t need it" and redistribute it to others.
  
  We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  derek bomar;611575 wrote:so because he wants to roll back the tax brackets to what they were during the Clinton years for the wealthy, he's a socialist? Got it. He's actually right, we can't afford tax breaks, for the rich. We can't afford them for the poor either. Everyone's taxes need to go up, and spending needs to be cut.

  Apple;611685 wrote:BHO is a socialist because he believes in his heart that the government has the right to take possessions and wealth from "people who are doing very well and don’t need it" and redistribute it to others.
  
  We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

  I can't help but laugh looking at the differences between these two statements. The sentence that I bolded really highlights one of the most divisive issues that is undermining this country. Some people understand that sentene automatically while others don't.
  
  Government always wants more because it has no self control, like a wild beast. Just take a look at the books.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Apple;611685 wrote:BHO is a socialist because he believes in his heart that the government has the right to take possessions and wealth from "people who are doing very well and don’t need it" and redistribute it to others.
  
  We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

  
  This.
  
  Tax breaks are ONLY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO KEEP MONEY THAT IS THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH.
  
  Liberals seem to think your paycheck belongs to the government, first.
• queencitybuckeye

  Speaking only for myself, a tax increase would be a lot more tolerable if there was some amount of progress made on the spending side of the ledger first.
• believer

  

  queencitybuckeye;612026 wrote:Speaking only for myself, a tax increase would be a lot more tolerable if there was some amount of progress made on the spending side of the ledger first.

  I agree. When DC shows it wants to be serious about CUTTING spending, then I'll gladly entertain the merits of tax increases if necessary. I wholeheartedly agree...We don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a government spending problem.
• QuakerOats

  derek bomar;611575 wrote: He's actually right, we can't afford tax breaks, for the rich.

  
  Wrong ------ we can't afford to spend a couple trillion per year ---- PERIOD!
• derek bomar

  

  CenterBHSFan;611760 wrote:I can't help but laugh looking at the differences between these two statements. The sentence that I bolded really highlights one of the most divisive issues that is undermining this country. Some people understand that sentene automatically while others don't.
  
  Government always wants more because it has no self control, like a wild beast. Just take a look at the books.

  
  We can't cut our way out of our debt due to its size. So yes, we do have a revenue problem.
• derek bomar

  

  QuakerOats;614834 wrote:Wrong ------ we can't afford to spend a couple trillion per year ---- PERIOD!

  
  we can't afford that either, but we can't afford to not increase taxes either. Cutting spending is half the solution (and I'd love to see what you'd be for cutting - i have a feeling if Dems actually offered said cuts they'd be made to look like they either are a) pussies for cutting defense spending or b) wanting to kill grandma by limiting her medicare). Due to the size of the interest on the debt alone we need to raise revenue along with cutting spending. Not acknowledging this is only going to make the problem worse.
• QuakerOats

  We DO NOT need to raise revenue ----- the treasury is awash in record revenue ....... BUT SPENDING IS RISING AT AN ASTOUNDING RATE. We could cut spending 20% EASILY and no one would miss it! The problem is politicians don't have the brains and balls to do it -- they have never had to do it in real life. A lot of us could do it in a heartbeat.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;614998 wrote:We DO NOT need to raise revenue ----- the treasury is awash in record revenue ....... BUT SPENDING IS RISING AT AN ASTOUNDING RATE. We could cut spending 20% EASILY and no one would miss it! The problem is politicians don't have the brains and balls to do it -- they have never had to do it in real life. A lot of us could do it in a heartbeat.

  
  I've asked you this before, where would you cut 20%? Then, how would you convince lawmakers to do it, and then how do you sell it to the public?
  Thing is just cutting spending with current revenue flows coming in will eventually pan out, but it will take nearly a decade.
  Better idea is for us to make sacrifices by 1. cutting spending and services and 2. having our taxes raised for a limited amount of time in 2012.
• derek bomar

  

  QuakerOats;614998 wrote:We DO NOT need to raise revenue ----- the treasury is awash in record revenue ....... BUT SPENDING IS RISING AT AN ASTOUNDING RATE. We could cut spending 20% EASILY and no one would miss it! The problem is politicians don't have the brains and balls to do it -- they have never had to do it in real life. A lot of us could do it in a heartbeat.

  
  where do you propose we start?
• BGFalcons82

  

  derek bomar;615062 wrote:where do you propose we start?

  
  Paul Ryan will be the new chair of the House Budget Committee. You'll be hearing a ton more about him and his ideas as the Congress will need to raise the debt ceiling come about March, 2011. He's already on record with his plan and I've posted it several times already on political threads here. It was submitted last year to Queen Nancy but she threw it in the trash before even opening it. I guess she's consistent...she passed ObamaKare without reading that POS either.
  
  http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Freeze all spending now. All of it, not just say we're doing it, like Obama has done.
  
  Then go item by item through the budget and find 20 percent in each area that can be halted right now. Everything is on the table.
  
  After that's done, announce you are phasing out the departments of education, agriculture and the EPA, and will expect the states to set their own standards and enforcement for those areas, and do without government funding. I'm sure there are a few more departments that can also be phased out gradually, as people find other jobs or retire.
  
  As you hit the biggies like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense, make sure you communicate to the people exactly why everything has to be frozen while Congress looks at which costs are truly needed, and which can be cut. Then start making some really hard decisions on what is truly needed vs. what is excess.
  
  I have to believe there are tons of areas within those major entitlements that can be scaled back by at least 20 percent.
  
  When you've got the government to the point it actually is paying for itself, THEN you can talk about possibly putting on a temporary sales tax that will go directly toward paying off the debt and, by law, can't be used for anything else.
  
  Leave income taxes alone, but look at cutting the corporate rate to bring it back in line with the rest of the world, and take other pro-business steps that help keep companies here or possibly even entice those who have left to return.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I'm wondering how much could be saved by cutting bureaucracy alone. Take DHS for instance. Consolidating, combing, getting rid of, etc., wonder how much money per year could be saved.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Here's another idea of cutting down some government and saving money. If we're going to let illegal aliens run rampant, then we can fire all of INS except maybe 5 workers.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye;615077 wrote:Freeze all spending now. All of it, not just say we're doing it, like Obama has done.
  
  Then go item by item through the budget and find 20 percent in each area that can be halted right now. Everything is on the table.
  
  After that's done, announce you are phasing out the departments of education, agriculture and the EPA, and will expect the states to set their own standards and enforcement for those areas, and do without government funding. I'm sure there are a few more departments that can also be phased out gradually, as people find other jobs or retire.
  
  As you hit the biggies like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense, make sure you communicate to the people exactly why everything has to be frozen while Congress looks at which costs are truly needed, and which can be cut. Then start making some really hard decisions on what is truly needed vs. what is excess.
  
  I have to believe there are tons of areas within those major entitlements that can be scaled back by at least 20 percent.
  
  When you've got the government to the point it actually is paying for itself, THEN you can talk about possibly putting on a temporary sales tax that will go directly toward paying off the debt and, by law, can't be used for anything else.
  
  Leave income taxes alone, but look at cutting the corporate rate to bring it back in line with the rest of the world, and take other pro-business steps that help keep companies here or possibly even entice those who have left to return.

  I agree with most of that, except with phasing out Education, etc. But, I agree with the general concept. Agencies need to be cut back, with their services contracted out to the private sector with the agencies job to oversee and manage the projects. But, painful cuts in the entitlements are really needed. I'm willing to sacrifice and if the President and Congress framed the arguments of these cuts as it is the American thing to do, to make the cuts, to make sacrifices, for the good of the country, in the end we will all be better.
  

  CenterBHSFan;615134 wrote:I'm wondering how much could be saved by cutting bureaucracy alone. Take DHS for instance. Consolidating, combing, getting rid of, etc., wonder how much money per year could be saved.

  The federal bureaucracy, except defense, only makes up 15 or so percent.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
• Cleveland Buck

  

  15% of $3,550,000,000,000 is a lot of money.
• Belly35

  

  I have no problem taxing those that make money as long as it is equal for all, we are all American are we not. Wealth to Poor
  Oh! Yes even the Poor on public assistance should pay taxes. Taking it out of their entitlement benefits. The poor really are not paying anything just not receiving as much which will help cut the budget which is the same as paying taxes. Plus this gives the poor an opportunity to contribute to this great country and provides a responsibility that will help them grow as citizens and support others along the way to prosperity.
  
  Obama has already taken from the poor to support the rich: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/10/democrats-advocacy-groups-blast-cuts-food-stamps-fund-m-jobs/
  
  So it’s OK to do….
• gut

  Actually a good point about "confiscating" money people work hard to earn.
  
  The problem is the definition of "wealthy". If you can rake in 1M+ a year, yeah I think maybe you should be in a higher tax bracket. Even 5% more in taxes they still have a ton left. My issue are those people making 200, 300 or even 500k a year. Many of them work very hard and probably hope to retire earlier to reap the fruits of their labor. But you want to tax them unmercifully and then the incentive to produce/earn that goes away. People leave high paying jobs all the time to have better work/life balance. And if you just have to work that many more years to retire in the same position then the incentive that it's just not worth it becomes greater.
• I Wear Pants

  We need higher taxes and lower spending. That simple.
  
  I thought that ending the tax cut (to roll back to Clinton era levels) for people making more than a million dollars a year was a pretty good compromise. Obviously people thought otherwise.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;617175 wrote:We need higher taxes and lower spending. That simple.
  
  I thought that ending the tax cut (to roll back to Clinton era levels) for people making more than a million dollars a year was a pretty good compromise. Obviously people thought otherwise.

  
  Bingo....And if they really buckled down on the budget, they could balance the budget at current tax rates. Then a few % bump in taxes could go to paying down the debt. I'd vote for any politician willing to do that.
  
  Or, at some point, we'll have a VAT or national sales tax. Might not be a bad idea to tack-on 2-3% on consumption (excluding food and energy). Although I'm fundamentally opposed to NEW forms of taxation, too easy to hide what the tax burden really is and too tempting for the govt to eventually abuse out of control.