How should they Pretend?

[Accountable]

[video=youtube;7oRxqoiTF4E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7oRxqoiTF4E[/video]

[h=1]Obama takes his fiscal plan to Pennsylvania, pressuring GOP as both sides bristle[/h]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you think that going on a campaign trail (on our dime) to rile the people up is the way the executive branch should pretend to give a shit about the nation's budget, or should they be sitting down in Washington pretending to negotiate?

 

[CityGirl]

I dunno, looks to me like they are doing both...Biden is at Costco and the rest are sitting in DC pretending to negotiate.

 

[MoonOwl]

Barack should bring back the 90% tax bracket by Executive Order and watch all those politicians freak out and all those corporations our government appears to be beholden to freak out. Free ride over? Say it ain't so.

Funny, my Grandfather was in that tax bracket all those years ago and I'm still enjoying those perks. Somehow he didn't wind up destitute on the streets w/out any extra money. Obviously, very far from it. I'm sure he enjoyed any loophole available as well. He was also a very giving man charity-wise. He made and shared plenty of money while giving the government their 90% taxes.

So all the whine I see/read about the damaging effects of raising taxes on those that can indeed afford it makes me laugh out loud. From personal experience.

 

[Accountable]

I dunno, looks to me like they are doing both...Biden is at Costco and the rest are sitting in DC pretending to negotiate.

That's a separate article link in the OP. President Obama's in PA.

With little evidence of progress in the "fiscal cliff" negotiations in Washington, President Obama today takes his message on the road: The president will travel to a toy manufacturing facility in Hatfield, Pa., where he will make the case that Congress should immediately extend the Bush-era tax cuts on income under $250,000 per year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57556312/obama-taking-fiscal-cliff-fight-to-the-public/

I don't give a damn about the tax hikes. I want to see spending cuts. Deep cuts. Real cuts, not this reduction in increase crap that Paul Ryan suggests.

 

[Minor Axis]

Accountable, you kiddin? This is the exact role of the President's Administration. When he can't get the assholes in Congress to go along, take it above their heads to the bully pulpit, and appeal to the people just like RReagan did decades ago.

 

[Accountable]

President Obama has given up before he's even begun then; he has not even tried to get the assholes in Congress to "go along" (I notice that you've abandoned pretending that you care if they get along, only that they do as they're told). Reagan used the bully pulpit, yes. Reagan also met with Tip O'Neal on a regular basis.

But save your dem apologetics. I have your answer. You support this pretense over the negotiating one. That's fine.

 

[Jackass master]

Cuts in spending first. We can raise taxes next year if they cut some more. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. If they let the cuts take place like they should, employment would grow overnight. Too much smart money knows they can't run their business like the D.C. bunch has been doing.

 

[Johnfromokc]

What spending do we cut? I hear "cut spending" constantly, but never what shoud be cut. Exactly do you guys suggest we cut? Does anyone have an itemized list?

 

[The Man]

Cuts in spending first. We can raise taxes next year if they cut some more. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. If they let the cuts take place like they should, employment would grow overnight. Too much smart money knows they can't run their business like the D.C. bunch has been doing.

Cuts in spending first.

Absolutely

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

I totally agree
Spending per household {capita}..{not to be confused with entitlements per household} has close to tripled since the 60s after adjusted for inflation.
While I can see some increase triple is just a bit much.
It just keeps going up every year.
We need to get spending down to half of what we have now to really prosper and straighten out the gov.
I dont see it happening though

 

[The Man]

What spending do we cut? I hear "cut spending" constantly, but never what shoud be cut. Exactly do you guys suggest we cut? Does anyone have an itemized list?

Start with funds that go to your college....you make to much money john

 

[Minor Axis]

President Obama has given up before he's even begun then; he has not even tried to get the assholes in Congress to "go along" (I notice that you've abandoned pretending that you care if they get along, only that they do as they're told). Reagan used the bully pulpit, yes. Reagan also met with Tip O'Neal on a regular basis.

But save your dem apologetics. I have your answer. You support this pretense over the negotiating one. That's fine.

I guess you don't remember the last 4 years of GOP lines in the sand. And you call me partisan.

 

[Accountable]

I guess you don't remember the last 4 years of GOP lines in the sand. And you call me partisan.

Doesn't matter. The reelection changed the game, remember? Boehner is all docile & shit, talking about raising taxes.

 

[Accountable]

What spending do we cut? I hear "cut spending" constantly, but never what shoud be cut. Exactly do you guys suggest we cut? Does anyone have an itemized list?

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?64741-What-Should-We-Cut

 

[The Man]

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?64741-What-Should-We-Cut&highlight=dept

I saw several that we could do without.
Perhaps they can create a new agency...one for agency elimination.

One problem I do see {and I am being serious}
With eliminations wont there many job protections...meaning you cant get rid of em or if you do you still have to pay em anyway.....Like union bullshit {another reason I am against unions}

 

[Accountable]

I saw several that we could do without.
Perhaps they can create a new agency...one for agency elimination.

One problem I do see {and I am being serious}
With eliminations wont there many job protections...meaning you cant get rid of em or if you do you still have to pay em anyway.....Like union bullshit {another reason I am against unions}

No fix is painless, especially when fixing stupid or wasteful shit.

 

[The Man]

No fix is painless, especially when fixing stupid or wasteful shit.

I am all in support of it..I just would expect alot of bumps along the way.

 

[Accountable]

I guess you don't remember the last 4 years of GOP lines in the sand. And you call me partisan.

Doesn't matter. The reelection changed the game, remember? Boehner is all docile & shit, talking about raising taxes.

I signed up to follow all of my gov't representatives on both TWITter and Farcebook. Here's the tripe Cornyn is trying to peddle:

[video=youtube;ZUCYlcTvKfs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZUCYlcTvKfs[/video]

 

[The Man]

Without trying to overly complicate things here total spending US state and local in 1960 was 151 billion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_1960USbt_13bs5n

In 2011 it was 6.1 trillion.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_2011USbt_13bs5n


Which is 40 times as much...yes there is inflation to consider as well as population growth..which does bring it way down yes...but it is just to get a picture of the trend....it can not be sustained indefinitely something has to break.
Rampant spending needs to stop.
Good ole 60s where a dad could work/ mom stay at home and everybody had 4 or 5 kids.
Good luck with that now...it would be impossible..as the jobs to support such are not near as common.
Whats the cause?
You pay for everybody's taxes before you when you buy a product or service....from beginning to end....hell then they pay again lol...it win win for the govt
Thus your dollar has smaller purchase power due to all the expenses handed down.
Also with less blow money...we create less jobs /buying stuff is what creates jobs.

Now if people think we can not dramatically reduce the budget they may want to again.
we should be actually spending less {after adjusted for inflation}...due to advanced technology {more efficient}

 

[Stone]

Without trying to overly complicate things here total spending US state and local in 1960 was 151 billion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_1960USbt_13bs5n

In 2011 it was 6.1 trillion.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_2011USbt_13bs5n


Which is 40 times as much...yes there is inflation to consider as well as population growth..which does bring it way down yes...but it is just to get a picture of the trend....it can not be sustained indefinitely something has to break.
Rampant spending needs to stop.
Good ole 60s where a dad could work/ mom stay at home and everybody had 4 or 5 kids.
Good luck with that now...it would be impossible..as the jobs to support such are not near as common.
Whats the cause?
You pay for everybody's taxes before you when you buy a product or service....from beginning to end....hell then they pay again lol...it win win for the govt
Thus your dollar has smaller purchase power due to all the expenses handed down.
Also with less blow money...we create less jobs /buying stuff is what creates jobs.

Now if people think we can not dramatically reduce the budget they may want to again.
we should be actually spending less {after adjusted for inflation}...due to advanced technology {more efficient}

Good post, TM.

And John has brought up the bottleneck in achieving deficit/debt reduction:

What spending do we cut? I hear "cut spending" constantly, but never what shoud be cut. Exactly do you guys suggest we cut? Does anyone have an itemized list?

Currently, we have two parties separated on financial economic theory to the degree neither concede to significant compromise.
It's don't touch my interests, cut the other guy's.
I don't have a list or a range of cuts, but it seems obvious cuts need to occur in both camps in addition to tax formulas changing.

Increasing taxation on a consumer base ( the middle class) very unwise as reduced consumption drives recessions, and increasing taxation too much on the very wealthy, carrying the risk of investment money being offshored looking for better returns.
Pretty obvious there exists an argument there of what is too much. I don't know where that starts, only that it's logical there is a limit as it's now a global economy.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Pretty much sums it up right here.