The new party of no?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And for someone who has written a 100 threads about the GOP being the "party of no" because their supposed lack of compromise on issues, it is interesting that the Dems becoming exactly what you complained about seems to elude you as well.

The DEMS want tax breaks for the Middle, and not for the Rich. The Republicans want tax breaks for everyone. So, they agree on something ( keeping the Bush tax cut in place for the Middle.) Why should they have to negotiate on something the Republicans are supposed to be for? If the Republicans were supposed to be against keeping the tax break for the middle, then this would make a lot more sense. I think forcing the Republicans to vote on this is a must. Get them on record (against keeping the tax break for the Middle.) If he wants to get elected again, he better expose the differences between the 2 choices. Start here. The only way to get Republicans to come towards the center is to threaten to expose their true beliefs. Threaten to make them take votes that expose the differences between them and independent voters.

[Riot]

The other thing the Dems are doing is gearing up a better PR machine. They are notoriously lousy at publicizing their successes.

Passed largest middle-class tax cut in history - Obama, Pelosi Reid

Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid

When you spend 3 billion on a mis-guided cash for clunkers program a budget cut of 1 billion is an insult. How much will the Pelosi $250 per senior cost?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When you spend 3 billion on a mis-guided cash for clunkers program a budget cut of 1 billion is an insult. How much will the Pelosi $250 per senior cost?

You don't keep up with current political news, do you? And yes, cutting 1 billion out of the deficit is a very good thing, even if you didn't personally like a line item in last year's budget. BTW, have you seen the success of the government bailout of the auto industry? The taxpayers are making back their money on that one, and look at the industry saved, and the numbers of jobs saved (No, Dems cannot message worth a darn)

And we can cut 700 billion more out of the budget over the next 10 years, if the GOP would stop insisting that their corporate donation friends, the top 2% of earners (millionaires and billionaires) in the US, get an extra tax cut over and above the tax cut on income $250K or less get. I thought the GOP was in favor of lowering the deficit and fiscal responsibility? No?

Here's 'the' Austan Goolsby explaining it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...plains-tax-cut

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

It's beyond obvious what we have to get rid of, in order to cut our deficit in the future:

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's beyond obvious what we have to get rid of, in order to cut our deficit in the future:

If you believe in the producer of the graph who is unfortunately for you is tilted far left.

How about we use the Office of Managment and Budget's 2009 graph



Ten Bi-Partisan Ideas and or Cuts
1)We need to return to is Bush's last budget of $3.1 Trillion. Current 2011 Budget $3.8 Trillion Savings $700 Billion Since Dems were so appauled at W's spending surely they can function on the same. Suffer Rating 0/10

2)Moratorium on all bailouts Savings $150 billion minimum Suffer Rating 0/10 in fact a Good Feeling Rating of 2/10 for those who paid their mortgages and didn't fudge their loan apps.

3)50% Cut in Discretionary Spending Savings $218 Billion Suffer Rating 6/10 but most everyone suffering will be a bloated Gov. worker with a fat pension. Answer Privatize everything from the TSA to the past retirement marshalls guarding Fed Court Houses. Move Gov offices to low rent areas of cities and towns. Frees up more expensive locations for private businesses and thus property and business taxes while providing action and security as a by-product of moving to the hood. Thus Good Feeling Rating of 6/10 for the non-government employee.

4)2% Cut in Mandatory Spending Savings $12 Billion Government furlough days, reduction in pensions and benefits and privatizing all menial jobs easy. Suffer Rating 2/10 for Government Workers. However a 2/10 Good Feeling Rating by Non-Government employees

5)10% Cut in Medicare/Caid Savings $68 Billion There's allegedly 10% fraud going on right now. Find it and punish those responsible. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

6)2% Cut in Social Security Savings $13 Billion Find the dead people's relatives who are collecting checks and recoup the money from them. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

7)Defense should be and is the number one focus of the Government and remains the same. Some things are priceless.

8)Deport illegal immigrants Savings $50 Billion minimum in addition to providing legal Americans jobs reducing school class size, crime and drug trafficing not to mention gangs and possible homeland security threats. Good Feeling Rating AMERICAN 9/10.

9) DNA test every baby born to affirm parents are correct as listed on a birth certificate. This will prevent any law suits and thus time and money in the future. Parents will be required to provide proof of insurance and citizenship before being admitted to a hospital. Nearby day-nurse facilities and volunteer doctors will be available for those w/o ( Being bi-partisan).

10) Re-evaluate the National Guard and Army Reserve's activities. Instead of doing things like 7 hour caravans, take for granted these mostly young soilders can stay awake and remain seated in a Humvee, and have them clear and clean Public Housing buildings, and run their caravans thru inner cities providing a more realistic environment and providing a bit of security as a side beni. (Don't know many gang bangers that would do a driveby while the Army was in the hood)

There ya go. Ten virtualy painless moves that would save $1.2 trillion a year minus some DNA tests and have the National Debt paid off in no time with plenty of benefits along the way!

[Riot]

If you believe in the producer of the graph who is unfortunately for you is tilted far left

You are saying the Congressional Budget Office is passing on false information? Please, do give us your figures.

How about we use the Office of Managment and Budget's 2009 graph

Why do we want to compare a deficit graph to an annual budget allocation graph? They are two different things. Apples and oranges.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are saying the Congressional Budget Office is passing on false information? Please, do give us your figures.

If you read the fine print your graph is based on analysis done by CBPP.org using CBO numbers. But you knew that.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

]

BIG F'N DEAL and once again he gives the big middle finger to troops. The truth on Federal jobs.

"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...eral-pay_N.htm

I think you made my point for privatization of most all things Federal. If the Average Fed worker is paid 20% more than the private sector employee we can save 20% percent off the Federal payroll and not lose a single job. Now the big savings comes when benefits and the crazy pensions are brought into the same hemisphere as the real world at a savings of $30,000 per employee. Currently there are 1.35 milion Federal employees, privatize half (we need Judges, Senators etc. I get that) and save just over 20 TRILLION dollars. Talk about a quick, easy fix!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

To summarize, ^^^ Attack the middle class , and cut tax on the rich. Same GOP stuff. You have many versions of the way to accomplish the same goal. Funny how you never want to lower the rates for Doctors, Vets, Dentists etc. People who continue to charge more, more, and more. No cutting them. Also, it's illegal to use someone else (to do what is usually the most routine work.) When someone is attacking people making less than 100k a year, there's a damn good chance it is a Republican. Their targets are rarely greedy people. They admire them.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

To summarize, ^^^ Attack the middle class , and cut tax on the rich. Same GOP stuff. You have many versions of the way to accomplish the same goal.

Give me a break I said nothing about the middle class.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

BIG F'N DEAL and once again he gives the big middle finger to troops. [/i]

Not including military troops in a wage freeze proposal is giving them the finger? You're nuts.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not including military troops in a wage freeze proposal is giving them the finger? You're nuts.

I'm afraid he will cut the defense budget and possibly military wages. Especially if he is able to con his way to a second term.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

BTW You got suckered once again.

"President Obama spoke of the need for sacrifice last week when he announced a two-year pay freeze for federal employees.

But feds won't be too terribly deprived in 2011 and 2012. Despite the freeze, some 1.1 million employees will receive more than $2.5 billion in raises during that period."

So once again we save $1.3 billion by freezing salaries but will give 11 of every 15 employess $2.5 billion in raises? How is this not called out as the utter bullshiat it is??? Somehow everytime this idiot tries to save us money it ends up costing us more money

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/.../12060301/1001

[Riot]

Do you just not read and understand the articles you post? The 1.3 billion saved is still saved. It's money not spent. The total budget will be 1.3 billion less than it would be if they don't do it (if Congress approves it, which I doubt the Dems will)

[Antitrust32]

the sad thing is 1.3 billion to them is like me having three pennies in my pocket that I just saved.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you just not read and understand the articles you post? The 1.3 billion saved is still saved. It's money not spent. The total budget will be 1.3 billion less than it would be if they don't do it (if Congress approves it, which I doubt the Dems will)

Do you understand 73% of Fed employees receiving raises amounting to almost double what the President said he would save by freezing salaries makes absolutely no sense?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The DEMS want tax breaks for the Middle, and not for the Rich. The Republicans want tax breaks for everyone. So, they agree on something ( keeping the Bush tax cut in place for the Middle.) Why should they have to negotiate on something the Republicans are supposed to be for? If the Republicans were supposed to be against keeping the tax break for the middle, then this would make a lot more sense. I think forcing the Republicans to vote on this is a must. Get them on record (against keeping the tax break for the Middle.) If he wants to get elected again, he better expose the differences between the 2 choices. Start here. The only way to get Republicans to come towards the center is to threaten to expose their true beliefs. Threaten to make them take votes that expose the differences between them and independent voters.

Don't forget that the Dems want the rich to keep their Bush tax break on up to $250,000.

What the Dems do not want, and the GOP does want, is an extra tax break on income over $250,000. The GOP wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break. The Dems do not.

Edit: and public opinion is overwhelmingly, via polls, with the Dem plan, and against the GOP plan.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Riot

Don't forget that the Dems want the rich to keep their Bush tax break on up to $250,000.

What the Dems do not want, and the GOP does want, is an extra tax break on income over $250,000. The GOP wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break. The Dems do not.

Edit: and public opinion is overwhelmingly, via polls, with the Dem plan, and against the GOP plan.

sure prove it witha pole thats not dem sided..im mean a real one..

[Riot]

Prove it? Have you not paid any attention to the news for the past few months? I've never seen a poll say differently. Do you have one? Google poll and Bush tax cuts and you'll get pages and pages of polls over the past months, pre- and post-election:

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm (Fox News)

http://www.politico.com/morningscore...gscore173.html (SEIU poll, Washington Post, Politico)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/2...cans-want.html (McClatchy)

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...or-the-wealthy (Gallup)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html (CBS, NYT)

http://southcapitolstreet.com/2010/1...t-health-care/ (Opinion Research)

Here's a good synopsis of multiple polls via party, showing how even the GOP members want tax cuts eliminated in favor of fiscal conservatism
http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress...-for-the-rich/

Here's what I think (hope) will happen: The Bush tax cuts cannot be partially arbitrarily extended (can't extend part, not extend part). So those bills will expire as scheduled - they will be gone January 1, 2011. However, the Dems in lame duck will pass a House bill providing new equivalent tax cuts for $250,000 and below, that will pass the House easily. In the lame duck Senate, the Dems will dare the GOP to vote down a Dem-sponsored bill for middle class tax cuts. They can't do it. It will pass. That will leave the new GOP, once they are in control in January, to try and pass a separate GOP tax cut bill for the top 2% of earners in the US, millionaires and billionaires only, a special tax cut for that income over $250,000/year. It's political suicide.

The above is why the new GOP Senators sent a letter to Harry Reid begging him not to address the tax cuts in lame duck (trying to control the agenda of a Senate they are not yet a part of)

[Cannon Shell]

I just want to know if you Dem's think that moving your party further left and allowing an extremely unpopular politician to remain the face of the party is going to workout in your favor?

I would also like an explanation on why the Dem's can now be the "party of no" (admittedly so seemingly at the expense of their former golden child) and why no one in the media (or Riot) is writing about it as being "anti-American" or "out of touch" like the GOP was characterized as?

And many of the Blue Dogs lost because the vast majority of them were running in relatively conservative districts where being a Dem (and being associated with Pelosi/Obama) hurt them, not because democrats wanted more liberal representation. That is a fairly ridiculous theory.