Obama proposes cuts to social security and medicare

**Zoolander** · 2011-07-20 17:15

Higher taxes quite often lead to higher jobs, but don't tell that to a conservative praying at the alter of Reagan.

**aurik** · 2011-07-20 17:16

Well then you must agree that your complaint that you don't want any tax increases until the government shows fiscal responsibility is a huge non-sequitur. After all, you conclude rightly that government spending is held in check by the debt ceiling (and only that), which means that changes in tax revenue doesn't actually impact the government's ability to spend.

**Cadsuane** · 2011-07-20 19:03

In this case, or in general? Because in general government spending is held in check by interest rates and inflation. While the US is sort of an exception to this rule because of the dollar's privileged role in financial markets as a reserve currency and trading standard (which is less true every day, incidentally), what you're saying isn't true in the stictest sense in the USG's case either.

**Kurokikaze** · 2011-07-20 19:43

Whoa whoa whoa.. Did he just say cut 60-70% of the budget before raising taxes...? Are you serious?? LOL

You know how unsustainable that is? We could cut Defense and SS entirely and still not be there. Get your head out of your ass.

**archibaldcrane** · 2011-07-20 19:57

He said he wants to cut 60-70% of "wasteful spending" (whatever exactly that means).

For example, that ineffective "green energy jobs" plan - was it a bad idea? Poor execution? Why is it so inefficient? Was it a kickback-style gift to a contractor who supported someone's campaign? Was there a bidding process for the job? Were there strings attached? How many jobs would it have needed to create before it's no longer "inefficient spending"?

It's a very vague characterization.

**Kurokikaze** · 2011-07-20 20:14

What is this wasteful spending? Cause from the way he puts it it definitely sounds like a lot of it. lol

**solanis** · 2011-07-20 20:16

everything from pork projects to inefficient deployment of capital to seriously misguided allocation of funds. I've posted sources in this thread a few pages back.

Demosthenes11 · 2011-07-20 20:19

Originally Posted by solanis

everything from pork projects to inefficient deployment of capital to seriously misguided allocation of funds. I've posted sources in this thread a few pages back.

can you think for a moment about the ridiculousness of meeting every individual's requirements for fund allocation before they pay taxes?

**archibaldcrane** · 2011-07-20 20:19

He keeps it pretty vague in the broad sense so that his "conditions upon which tax raises are acceptable" is never met.

**Caiyuo** · 2011-07-20 21:18

Maybe I've missed this segment of the discussion, but given that someone definitely has to bear this new burden in lieu of both the debt ceiling, the national debt and the budget, and we know that whether inefficiencies are ever cleaned up or not that they wouldn't happen before a resolution is reached, who should?

If the argument is against the wealthy bearing it then at what point is it considered fair as more cuts occur? I haven't seen any recommendations for this to be completely paid for by new revenue, but to simply be a shared sacrifice since it looks like the social programs most depended on by the lower and middle classes are definitely going to get cut in some significant regard. At some point it seems like "we don't want to bear it" inevitably has to be finished with "so give it to people who can't afford to instead."

I don't know, with all the lobbying and campaign money being thrown around you'd think efficiency would be the #1 issue on every bought politician's mind if that's what keeps the top tax brackets from approving new revenue and not being seen as the collective bad guys.

**Kuya** · 2011-07-20 23:27

Is this voting to raise the debt limit even necessary? I mean, why does it even exist anyway?

**archibaldcrane** · 2011-07-21 00:46

Originally Posted by Kuya

Is this voting to raise the debt limit even necessary? I mean, why does it even exist anyway?

Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

There's an argument out there that the president can end-around on this and probably get past the Supreme Court on it, but noone has ever tried it (not exactly sure what the argument entails).

**Olo401** · 2011-07-21 04:42

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

There's an argument out there that the president can end-around on this and probably get past the Supreme Court on it, but noone has ever tried it (not exactly sure what the argument entails).

Amendment XIV, Section 4 states "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Which basically means that no one - not Congress, not the President, not the Courts or the citizens - can say that there's a hard limit on how much public debt the country can have. Section 5 does allow Congress to pass laws in accordance, which I believe is where the idea of having a debt ceiling came from in the first place, but even in that case it would effectively be only a mile marker.

**Palin** · 2011-07-21 07:16

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...edit_for_.html

“The President killed any chance of its success by 1) Embracing it. 2) Hailing the fact that it increases taxes. 3) Saying it mirrors his own plan,”

Republicans have gone full retard.

It's funny because the plan they're going to block is so right of the Center already its not even funny. If Obama didn't have a D next to his name they'd be supporting this shit tooth and nail.

**Hyan** · 2011-07-21 10:22

I personally hope that the US economy collapses asap, so that you can leave the ancient idealistic principles behind and embrace better ones (like the general well-being of your people). Freedom? You already have it, time to move on and upgrade. I guess it won't happen before it's too late.

Same with trying to force make EU into something like the US. Retarded.

What do I know though, LOL.

**solanis** · 2011-07-21 10:35

Originally Posted by Hyan

I personally hope that the US economy collapses asap, so that you can leave the ancient idealistic principles behind and embrace better ones (like the general well-being of your people). Freedom? You already have it, time to move on and upgrade. I guess it won't happen before it's too late.

Same with trying to force make EU into something like the US. Retarded.

What do I know though, LOL.

lol that's like saying you hope japan has a full-blown nuclear meltdown so nuclear power will gain less traction internationally. if US credit collapses, the contagion will spread worldwide faster than you can say "international markets aren't isolated." if the US defaults, no one will be hurt more than the very poor worldwide. this is a very bad, bad thing to wish for, for any reason :/

**Hyan** · 2011-07-21 10:41

Originally Posted by solanis

lol that's like saying you hope japan has a full-blown nuclear meltdown so nuclear power will gain less traction internationally. if US credit collapses, the contagion will spread worldwide faster than you can say "international markets aren't isolated." if the US defaults, no one will be hurt more than the very poor worldwide. this is a very bad, bad thing to wish for, for any reason :/

Only if nuclear power were a bad thing...

I know shit will hit the fan but at this point it seems to be only a matter of time anyway. Let's get this over with.

**solanis** · 2011-07-21 10:47

Originally Posted by Hyan

Only if nuclear power were a bad thing...

I know shit will hit the fan but at this point it seems to be only a matter of time anyway. Let's get this over with.

nuclear power is awesome, it's just an example of wishing terrible things to happen to people to prove a point. credit default isn't an inevitability, so there's no reason to blow the horn to summon the apocalypse. if the politicians from BOTH parties don't slap the fuck up though, it'll happen. and that will be an ugly time to live through, especially for the poor...

**Talint** · 2011-07-21 11:01

Originally Posted by Palin

If Obama didn't have a dark skin tone they'd be supporting this shit tooth and nail.

Fixed for accuracy.

**notorious bum** · 2011-07-21 11:29

Japan did have a nuclear meltdown, where have you guys been? And nuclear power is awesome? lol wow, I want what you guys are having.

Next thing I know, you guys will be raving about the efficiency of natural gas drilling and mountaintop removal.

Thread: Obama proposes cuts to social security and medicare

Thread Tools

Similar Threads

Sony doubles forecast of annual loss to $6.4bn and planning 10,000 job cuts

Obama Deficit Commission Criticized for Proposals to Slash Social Security, Medicare

Do you agree with cutting social security or medicare?

DMC4 Coming to the 360 and PC

Need a reason to lol @ PS3 and Sony? Heres 122.

New to the forums, and thought i'd post my pic.

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads