Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Five Myths About the Sequester

Five Myths About the Sequester

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Five Myths About the Sequester Empty Five Myths About the Sequester 2/28/2013, 10:56 pm

knothead

knothead

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-sequester/2013/02/28/6e670260-804a-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html

*********************************************************

Interesting article that will provide forum members an opportunity to discuss!

2seaoat



Revenue enhancement must be part of the balancing act. We need loopholes closed, and subsidies drastically reduced. 85 billion a year to two major banks to guarantee loans......and that is only the tip of the iceberg. We are throwing worthy projects and their employees onto the streets which has a negative impact on our budget, and we have gone completely brain dead.

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:Revenue enhancement must be part of the balancing act. We need loopholes closed, and subsidies drastically reduced. 85 billion a year to two major banks to guarantee loans......and that is only the tip of the iceberg. We are throwing worthy projects and their employees onto the streets which has a negative impact on our budget, and we have gone completely brain dead.

The GOP is the modern equivalent of the Know Nothings.

knothead

knothead

Please understand I have had three scotch and waters so please indulge me . . . I am a left of center person politically from a Democratic family. That said let me express my opinion on this sequester standoff: first, it is not good for either party. Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective. Conversely, the Republicans have always stood firmly against any tax increases in any form and to cave to these ideological lines in the sand guarantee they will be primary-ed in their next election.

So then, Obama is limited in his ability to acquiesce to the R's demand of 'cuts' in FDR's social safety net programs supported by the majority of Americans or refuse to do so. Both entities are so committed to their ideological base that what we have is a state of political paralysis . . . . both sides have themselves painted into a corner and reasonable negotiating becomes completely improbable if not impossible.

Sal

Sal

knothead wrote:Please understand I have had three scotch and waters so please indulge me . . . I am a left of center person politically from a Democratic family. That said let me express my opinion on this sequester standoff: first, it is not good for either party. Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective. Conversely, the Republicans have always stood firmly against any tax increases in any form and to cave to these ideological lines in the sand guarantee they will be primary-ed in their next election.

So then, Obama is limited in his ability to acquiesce to the R's demand of 'cuts' in FDR's social safety net programs supported by the majority of Americans or refuse to do so. Both entities are so committed to their ideological base that what we have is a state of political paralysis . . . . both sides have themselves painted into a corner and reasonable negotiating becomes completely improbable if not impossible.

I hope it was good scotch, because I can't make heads or tails of your post.

Cheers!

2seaoat



I hope it was good scotch, because I can't make heads or tails of your post.

Cheers!



We will have Bob translate....he speaks the language.

knothead

knothead

Sal wrote:
knothead wrote:Please understand I have had three scotch and waters so please indulge me . . . I am a left of center person politically from a Democratic family. That said let me express my opinion on this sequester standoff: first, it is not good for either party. Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective. Conversely, the Republicans have always stood firmly against any tax increases in any form and to cave to these ideological lines in the sand guarantee they will be primary-ed in their next election.

So then, Obama is limited in his ability to acquiesce to the R's demand of 'cuts' in FDR's social safety net programs supported by the majority of Americans or refuse to do so. Both entities are so committed to their ideological base that what we have is a state of political paralysis . . . . both sides have themselves painted into a corner and reasonable negotiating becomes completely improbable if not impossible.

I hope it was good scotch, because I can't make heads or tails of your post.

Cheers!

**************************************************

Sal, that'll teach me to try and make a coherent post under the influence but I'll accept it as a swing and a miss.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:Please understand I have had three scotch and waters so please indulge me . . . I am a left of center person politically from a Democratic family. That said let me express my opinion on this sequester standoff: first, it is not good for either party. Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective. Conversely, the Republicans have always stood firmly against any tax increases in any form and to cave to these ideological lines in the sand guarantee they will be primary-ed in their next election.

So then, Obama is limited in his ability to acquiesce to the R's demand of 'cuts' in FDR's social safety net programs supported by the majority of Americans or refuse to do so. Both entities are so committed to their ideological base that what we have is a state of political paralysis . . . . both sides have themselves painted into a corner and reasonable negotiating becomes completely improbable if not impossible.

scotch and waters be darned, you make plenty of sense to me.

Our government is at a standstill because neither party and their representatives will find a compromise somewhere. This cannot be any more difficult than the Great Compromise the Founding Fathers were able to do despite their differences when writing the Constitution.

I am voting against every federal level person in power from here on out. None of them are worth the time and effort to name their names, but all are equally worthless be they have a (D) by their name or (R).

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
knothead wrote:Please understand I have had three scotch and waters so please indulge me . . . I am a left of center person politically from a Democratic family. That said let me express my opinion on this sequester standoff: first, it is not good for either party. Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective. Conversely, the Republicans have always stood firmly against any tax increases in any form and to cave to these ideological lines in the sand guarantee they will be primary-ed in their next election.

So then, Obama is limited in his ability to acquiesce to the R's demand of 'cuts' in FDR's social safety net programs supported by the majority of Americans or refuse to do so. Both entities are so committed to their ideological base that what we have is a state of political paralysis . . . . both sides have themselves painted into a corner and reasonable negotiating becomes completely improbable if not impossible.

I hope it was good scotch, because I can't make heads or tails of your post.

Cheers!

That is because you are part of the problem and not the solution.

Guest


Guest

I didn't find knot's statement difficult to understand... perhaps y'all don't speak common sense.

Sal

Sal

knothead wrote:Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective.

That's the part I don't understand ...

... the "ultimate objective" of whom?

SSI should not even be part of this discussion, and skyrocketing Medicare costs are stabilizing and appear to be headed down in coming decades.

There's no reason to "gut" either.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Sal wrote:
knothead wrote:Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective.

That's the part I don't understand ...

... the "ultimate objective" of whom?

SSI should not even be part of this discussion, and skyrocketing Medicare costs are stabilizing and appear to be headed down in coming decades.

There's no reason to "gut" either.
I have heard many political commentators say that the Republicans just absolutely hate SS and things like Medicare despite their extreme usefulness. They see it as part of the FDR creations which they hate.

I think this wish to dismantle social programs comes from their Ayn Rand type of thinking. Remember how Bush 43 tried to privatize SS? They just love getting their private hands on public money.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
knothead wrote:Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective.

That's the part I don't understand ...

... the "ultimate objective" of whom?

SSI should not even be part of this discussion, and skyrocketing Medicare costs are stabilizing and appear to be headed down in coming decades.

There's no reason to "gut" either.

If the "discussion" is about balancing the budget, reining in overspending, then, yes, SSI should be a part of the discussion. SSI provides valuable support for those disabled. The problem with SSI is the outrageous increase in the number of recipients. While SSI recipients remained fairly constant at around 7M in the last decade, the ranks have swollen to now over 10M. Fraud is surely a contributing factor. A “discussion” of SSI should be on the table.

knothead

knothead

colaguy wrote:
Sal wrote:
knothead wrote:Obama will never be the Democrat who makes significant concessions to the Republicans to gut Medicare or SS despite it being the ultimate objective.

That's the part I don't understand ...

... the "ultimate objective" of whom?

SSI should not even be part of this discussion, and skyrocketing Medicare costs are stabilizing and appear to be headed down in coming decades.

There's no reason to "gut" either.

If the "discussion" is about balancing the budget, reining in overspending, then, yes, SSI should be a part of the discussion. SSI provides valuable support for those disabled. The problem with SSI is the outrageous increase in the number of recipients. While SSI recipients remained fairly constant at around 7M in the last decade, the ranks have swollen to now over 10M. Fraud is surely a contributing factor. A “discussion” of SSI should be on the table.

***********************************************

I agree colaguy, SSI cuts a very broad swath across every aspect of our country now. It apparently is too easy to qualify for benefits . . . . . hence the explosion in recipients. We have a modest place on a lake in KY and there are people there drawing SS disability benefits that are perfectly capable of working . . . . . maybe not heavy work but lighter type vocations but obviously they prefer to live like a peasant than work and have some dignity. It is not just there but it has become ubiquitous in good ole USA.

SSI could be dealt with fiscally by raising the threshold so workers continue to pay into the system up to maybe $150,000.

Guest


Guest

Let me enlighten you all about the difference between SSI and SSDI. SSDI is a benefit people have paid into for disability. SSI is not. It is the federal welfare you get when you have a disability. My problem w/ SSI is we have given checks to all who have a disability even though they can work. Most all of my students get a disability check and I think that has been a detriment in preventing them from acquiring work and becoming productive citizens. The parents don't want them to be gainfully employed because they will lose their check.Many of them can work full time. I don't think you should get a check just because you have a disability. I think if you can't work you should be eligible. This has been a problem in this country and should be revised.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Revenue enhancement must be part of the balancing act. We need loopholes closed, and subsidies drastically reduced. 85 billion a year to two major banks to guarantee loans......and that is only the tip of the iceberg. We are throwing worthy projects and their employees onto the streets which has a negative impact on our budget, and we have gone completely brain dead.

President Barack Hussein Obama received the tax increases last year. Democrats are notorious for PROMISING SPENDING CUTS but ONLY after INCREASING TAXES. The gullible, honorable Republicans pass tax increases only to have the Democrats yank away the spending cuts. Not at all unlike Lucy and the football.

Not surprising, President Obama got the TAX INCREASES he demanded last year and now he was playing the SKY IS FALLING game if we cut just a tiny fraction from our massively bloated spending.

Five Myths About the Sequester 8261610a-4e1f-41bf-ad9b-0591b0916ffa

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Five Myths About the Sequester

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum