Sequestration

[ivwshane]

Gimmicky? Dems just got $600B in additional tax revenue last month and now are painting doomsday scenarios and blaming Republicans for sequester...all because of $85B in spending cuts that they already agreed to! Dems are masters of spin.

The dems are the master of spin? Really? Death panels? Obamacare? Liberal media? Pro abortion? Take away you guns? You are with us or you are with the terrorists? Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud? A country full of takers? Penalize job creators? Socialist?

Sure democrats spin, but are they the masters of it? I don't think so.


I'll ask again; what good are tax increases if people can avoid them through loopholes?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You mean this budget?

http://m.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

Sorry, I'd have to assume you mean the 2014 budget which looks to be delayed. But again, the presidents budget is just a guideline and republicans have been pretty keen on not follow it at all so why would having a White House budget matter?

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ding-plan-said-to-be-delayed-until-march.html


Oh and I'm still waiting for that sequestration counter proposal the republicans have, do you have a link?

Yes...I'm talking about the 2014 budget.

Here's the link you requested:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/28/senate-sequester-cuts-march-obama/1954259/

Senate rejects sequester alternatives

The Democratic alternative would have replaced the cuts, known as the sequester, through 2013 with a combination of a minimum 30% tax on millionaires and cuts to defense and farm programs. It failed 51-49.

The Republican alternative would have transferred sweeping authority to President Obama to force him to determine how to implement $85 billion in cuts instead of the across-the-board spending cut affecting most reaches of the federal government. The sequester exempts military personnel accounts and the social safety net including Social Security and Medicare. The GOP measure also failed, 38-62

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The dems are the master of spin? Really? Death panels? Obamacare? Liberal media? Pro abortion? Take away you guns? You are with us or you are with the terrorists? Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud? A country full of takers? Penalize job creators? Socialist?

Sure democrats spin, but are they the masters of it? I don't think so.

Of course you don't think so.

I'll ask again; what good are tax increases if people can avoid them through loopholes?

See Post #28. This reflects what I think about tax loopholes.

Edit: BTW...I've asked you a number of questions today...I'm still waiting for your answers.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes...I'm talking about the 2014 budget.

Here's the link you requested:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/28/senate-sequester-cuts-march-obama/1954259/

Senate rejects sequester alternatives

So by leading you mean giving all the power to the president so he can make all the tough decisions? That's the republican plan and you think that's better than what the president proposed?

Lol tell me you aren't serious.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course you don't think so.


See Post #28. This reflects what I think about tax loopholes.

Edit: BTW...I've asked you a number of questions today...I'm still waiting for your answers.

Sorry I must have missed them, what were they?


Oh and post 28 doesn't answer the question, it side steps it. I'm asking what would be the point of raising taxes if loopholes exist that will allow people to avoid them?

You saying that they should bring it up separately is a matter of opinion and doesn't address the question.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So by leading you mean giving all the power to the president so he can make all the tough decisions? That's the republican plan and you think that's better than what the president proposed?

Lol tell me you aren't serious.

They were offering to give complete control to him! What more do you want?!?!

 

[ivwshane]

They were offering to give complete control to him! What more do you want?!?!

Fantastic! And as I showed you, he already has a proposal ready to go! That's leadership is it not?


What more do I want? The same thing the American people want, people of differing opinions coming together and compromising in order to do what's best for the American people. I don't want a president who gets his way with everything, he (whether current, past, or future) doesn't represent me or my views perfectly and as such will benefit from hearing multiple opinions and the same goes for congress.

That's what I want. Do you think I'll get that when at least one party says, "I'd rather have nothing than compromise"? Because that's what the republicans just did.

I fully expect you to call then out on their lack of leadership too. /s

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sorry I must have missed them, what were they?

Is it really that difficult for you to review and answer the questions I posed in my recent posts? Sigh.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fantastic! And as I showed you, he already has a proposal ready to go! That's leadership is it not?

If Obama's plan is so good....why didn't Senate Democrats vote for the Republican proposal to give Obama control to decide where the cuts should be made?

 

[csteggo]

Gimmicky? Dems just got $600B in additional tax revenue last month and now are painting doomsday scenarios and blaming Republicans for sequester...all because of $85B in spending cuts that they already agreed to! Dems are masters of spin.

Actually yes gimmicky. Do you ever wonder why it was passed with a sunset clause in the first place? The initial tax cuts were done with a surplus and with a sunset provision to allow law makers to see the effects of the tax cuts and decide whether to keep them. They were designed to go away! So this idea that Democrats raised taxes is ludicrous. What also is ludicrous is when people beat the drum about entitlements during deficit spending conversations such as Social Security which has added $0 to the deficit. If you want to reform entitlements sure lets do so. Allow medicare to actually negotiate drug prices and health care durable goods. That right there will take care of a good chunk of the 89 billion. Will that happen? No because the same people beating the fiscal drum are the ones pocketing money from the insurance companies and medical industry.

 

[ivwshane]

Is it really that difficult for you to review and answer the questions I posed in my recent posts? Sigh.

Yes, I'm on a mobile phone with a small screen, having to search through 60 posts is a pita.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually yes gimmicky. Do you ever wonder why it was passed with a sunset clause in the first place? The initial tax cuts were done with a surplus and with a sunset provision to allow law makers to see the effects of the tax cuts and decide whether to keep them. They were designed to go away! So this idea that Democrats raised taxes is ludicrous. What also is ludicrous is when people beat the drum about entitlements during deficit spending conversations such as Social Security which has added $0 to the deficit. If you want to reform entitlements sure lets do so. Allow medicare to actually negotiate drug prices and health care durable goods. That right there will take care of a good chunk of the 89 billion. Will that happen? No because the same people beating the fiscal drum are the ones pocketing money from the insurance companies and medical industry.

I said "$600B in additional tax revenue".

 

[ivwshane]

If Obama's plan is so good....why didn't Senate Democrats vote for the Republican proposal to give Obama control to decide where the cuts should be made?

Probably because he offered too many cuts to social services, you know that whole balanced approach we keep talking about.

 

[ElFenix]

If Obama's plan is so good....why didn't Senate Democrats vote for the Republican proposal to give Obama control to decide where the cuts should be made?

doesn't change the magnitude of the cuts. which is not the same as avoiding much of the cuts.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Probably because he offered too many cuts to social services, you know that whole balanced approach we keep talking about.

Don't hurt yourself...just answer Post #59 please.

But I do encourage you to reread our conversation in this thread at some point and note your pattern of avoiding answering many of the questions I asked you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Probably because he offered too many cuts to social services, you know that whole balanced approach we keep talking about.

Probably? Surely you can do better than that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

doesn't change the magnitude of the cuts. which is not the same as avoiding much of the cuts.

The magnitude has already been agreed to by all parties. It's now a matter of where those cuts will come from.

 

[csteggo]

I can answer #59 for you. If Obama takes that plan and then has to decide on where the cuts go then the Republicans who would not compromise on making any kind of deal get the best of both worlds. They can say that they blocked the tax increases made the gov't more efficient and can blame the president when the people affected by the sequester comes to them. I thought that would be obvious to anyone when it was first suggested.

 

[ivwshane]

If Obama's plan is so good....why didn't Senate Democrats vote for the Republican proposal to give Obama control to decide where the cuts should be made?

Don't hurt yourself...just answer Post #59 please.

But I do encourage you to reread our conversation in this thread at some point and note your pattern of avoiding answering many of the questions I asked you.

I did answer the question, you even quoted it.

 

[cubby1223]

Actually yes gimmicky. Do you ever wonder why it was passed with a sunset clause in the first place? The initial tax cuts were done with a surplus and with a sunset provision to allow law makers to see the effects of the tax cuts and decide whether to keep them. They were designed to go away!

Where are you getting your facts from?

The Bush Tax Cuts were passed with an expiration date because there were not enough votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster on making the tax cuts permanent. The Bush administration had to pass the legislation through Reconciliation, making it easier to pass through the Senate, but at a drawback of being limited to a ten year timespan.

Reconciliation, read up on it.

The tax cuts were intended to be permanent.

This is also why Obamacare expires after 10 years instead of being permanent law.

 

[csteggo]

Where are you getting your facts from?

The Bush Tax Cuts were passed with an expiration date because there were not enough votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster on making the tax cuts permanent. The Bush administration had to pass the legislation through Reconciliation, making it easier to pass through the Senate, but at a drawback of being limited to a ten year timespan.

Reconciliation, read up on it.

The tax cuts were intended to be permanent.

This is also why Obamacare expires after 10 years instead of being permanent law.

So you are saying that using a special procedure as reconciliation is, because you don't have enough votes to pass it into law isn't gimmicky? Hey if with 51 votes including the Vice Presidents does it for you. Good to hear. And they would have liked to make it permanent yes and if they had the votes they would have. They didn't so the law did exactly what it was supposed to do. Well would have if they would not have been extended the first time. It expired. Tax cuts that we could not afford expired. But yes I do consider that gimmicky.

 

[ElFenix]

The magnitude has already been agreed to by all parties. It's now a matter of where those cuts will come from.

sure, but that's not the argument you were making.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I did answer the question, you even quoted it.

I didn't see your response until after I posted 5 minutes later. Sorry about that....hope it didn't confuse you too much.

Edit: BTW...your response was horrible!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

sure, but that's not the argument you were making.

I think we have a disconnect here. What is the argument I'm making from your perspective?

 

[csteggo]

One other point to make and this one is towards Doc Savage. The Senate actually took up 2 bills today for a vote one which was the republican which I believe you mentioned, which could only get I think 38 votes. The other bill which was democrats got 51 votes but again due to the senate rules needs 60 to overcome a filibuster so did not pass. The house on the other hand has not passed any bills this session to address offsetting the sequester. In point of fact Boener wont even bring up the Democrat one for a vote.