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

Boehner's Very Serious Counter Proposal

+3
2seaoat
Markle
Sal
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Sal

Sal

Raising the Medicare eligibility age, changing SSI formula to used so-called chained CPI, unspecified cuts, and unspecified new revenue.

The Medicare and SSI changes would produce $300 billion over ten years while inflicting untold suffering, bankruptcy, and misery on the elderly and poor.

Obama's proposal for raising taxes on the wealthy would produce $1.6 trillion over the same ten years.

Another nothing burger from Boehner.



Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:[font=Arial Black]
Obama's proposal for raising taxes on the wealthy would produce $1.6 trillion over the same ten years.



Sure about that figure huh?

At the same time I fault the Boehner group for not agreeing to higher taxes on the $250K group and above. That is just plain stupid. BHOs proposal has a few problems too but neither side seems serious about compromise.

Sal

Sal

The proposal was hand-delivered by Paul Ryan ...

Boehner's Very Serious Counter Proposal 66xjy910

Guest


Guest

Couldn't the question? It was a pretty easy question too.

Boehner's Very Serious Counter Proposal Biden3

Guest


Guest

:
Sal wrote:The proposal was hand-delivered by Paul Ryan ...

Boehner's Very Serious Counter Proposal 66xjy910

lol! lol! lol! lol! lol!

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:Couldn't the question? It was a pretty easy question too.

Boehner's Very Serious Counter Proposal Biden3


Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

Guest


Guest

I guess after reading Boehner's or Boner's proposal to cut the small social inflation increase seniors receive when inflation rises that the republicans do not want to control the house after the next congressional election. They should raise the Medicare age to 67 gradually but don't mess with the increases.

Guest


Guest

The letter with the GOP's proposal was sent to the president around 2 p.m. today. One senior Republican aide close to the negotiations admitted the counteroffer "is not something that a bunch of conservatives are going to be jumping up and down endorsing."

Guest


Guest

grimreaper1910 wrote:I guess after reading Boehner's or Boner's proposal to cut the small social inflation increase seniors receive when inflation rises that the republicans do not want to control the house after the next congressional election. They should raise the Medicare age to 67 gradually but don't mess with the increases.

I thought the retirement age for full SS benefits was already 67 if you were born 1960 or later.

Guest


Guest

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
grimreaper1910 wrote:I guess after reading Boehner's or Boner's proposal to cut the small social inflation increase seniors receive when inflation rises that the republicans do not want to control the house after the next congressional election. They should raise the Medicare age to 67 gradually but don't mess with the increases.

I thought the retirement age for full SS benefits was already 67 if you were born 1960 or later.

Yes, but the eligibility for Medicare is still 65.

I just read further and the cut's to the cpi for ss raises also apply to all other fed pensions and VA benefits. I used to think only half of the repugs and half of the demo's were fucked, now I see about 95% of the repugs and 80% of demo's are fucked. Hell, senior's received a 1.7% increase for 2013 and Boner wants to lower it?

Guest


Guest

grimreaper1910 wrote:
Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
grimreaper1910 wrote:I guess after reading Boehner's or Boner's proposal to cut the small social inflation increase seniors receive when inflation rises that the republicans do not want to control the house after the next congressional election. They should raise the Medicare age to 67 gradually but don't mess with the increases.

I thought the retirement age for full SS benefits was already 67 if you were born 1960 or later.

Yes, but the eligibility for Medicare is still 65.

I just read further and the cut's to the cpi for ss raises also apply to all other fed pensions and VA benefits. I used to think only half of the repugs and half of the demo's were fucked, now I see about 95% of the repugs and 80% of demo's are fucked. Hell, senior's received a 1.7% increase for 2013 and Boner wants to lower it?


And no tax increases for the rich.

Guest


Guest

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
grimreaper1910 wrote:I guess after reading Boehner's or Boner's proposal to cut the small social inflation increase seniors receive when inflation rises that the republicans do not want to control the house after the next congressional election. They should raise the Medicare age to 67 gradually but don't mess with the increases.

I thought the retirement age for full SS benefits was already 67 if you were born 1960 or later.



I'm taking mine at 63 since that will HOPEFULLY be my last year of working. I once showed a group of students the benefit of taking it early compared to taking it at 70 with full benefits. The average 70 year old will have to get full benefits for about 14 years to catch up to the person who takes it at 62. That means the 70 year old is going to have to collect until age 84 just to catch up to the guy who took it at 62. Who knows if I will live to be 84. Sure, I am hoping, but it will be God's will.

If I remember correctly, my benefit at age 62 would be about $1150 per month and waiting until age 70 gives me a total of about $1800 or so.

Markle

Markle

All these whining Progressives and not one with a solution as to how to pay for this massive debt.

Where will this money come from? Please don't say the "RICH", they don't have anywhere NEAR this much money.

Current Debt . . . $16.3 TRILLION Plus the $1.2 TRILLION proposed by President Barack Hussein Obama for 2013. (No budget approved)

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $15.9 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY) (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs .$20.4 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $83.4 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $120.4 TRILLION!

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per household $1,053,398.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

PLUS ObamaCare and Untold TRILLIONS more in TAXES

Since far left radical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took office in January 1, 2007 our debt has increased by $6+ TRILLION.

SIX+ TRILLION since President Barack Hussein Obama took office. With Obama promise of ANOTHER $1.3 TRILLION DEBT FOR 2013.

Why do Progressives DEMAND a far lower standard of living for our children and their children? What makes you so superior, so selfish that you think you deserve far more of what they will earn?

Saddling our children and their children with this massive debt is immoral, indefensible and, as we have seen, the Progressives don’t even try.

Shameful and immoral!

When Social Security began, at what age did a person become eligible fro retirement benefits? What was the average life span of an American? What are they today?

2seaoat



Shameful and immoral!

You are just a wee bit late to the party........I am not sure when you started posting at the PNJ, but we all needed to be a bit more diligent 10 years ago, and if you have not figured this out.....let me help.....The Democrats won.....75% of America believes that tax increases on the top 2% is a starting point.......austerity which causes a recession will compound our debt problems, and we simply need to grow GDP at this point in time and make the cuts which can keep this economy functioning....austerity has failed in Europe.......and what happens when you print funny money.....the end of the world.....nope....look at Brazil and Argentina....now tell me what their rates of inflation were 25 years ago.....This country is not in trouble.....I repeat.....this country is not in trouble......some folks are going to have to pay more taxes....programs are going to have to be cut.....we are going to have to negotiate drug prices......but we are the game........the talk of the Euro taking the dollars position even 5 years ago.....crickets.....

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Shameful and immoral!

You are just a wee bit late to the party........I am not sure when you started posting at the PNJ, but we all needed to be a bit more diligent 10 years ago, and if you have not figured this out.....let me help.....The Democrats won.....75% of America believes that tax increases on the top 2% is a starting point.......austerity which causes a recession will compound our debt problems, and we simply need to grow GDP at this point in time and make the cuts which can keep this economy functioning....austerity has failed in Europe.......and what happens when you print funny money.....the end of the world.....nope....look at Brazil and Argentina....now tell me what their rates of inflation were 25 years ago.....This country is not in trouble.....I repeat.....this country is not in trouble......some folks are going to have to pay more taxes....programs are going to have to be cut.....we are going to have to negotiate drug prices......but we are the game........the talk of the Euro taking the dollars position even 5 years ago.....crickets.....

You're joking? Programs don't have to be cut, they have to be SLASHED! All the rich in America don't have the money to pay for all the gimmies Progressives think they deserve.

Why do Progressives DEMAND a far lower standard of living for our children and their children? What makes you so superior, so selfish that you think you deserve far more of what they will earn?

Saddling our children and their children with this massive debt is immoral, indefensible and, as we have seen, the Progressives don’t even try.

Shameful and immoral!

Guest


Guest

Closing loopholes and cutting deductions sounds to me a more stable expectation for increasing revenues.

What's the hangup from the left over only raising rates? It sounds ideological to me.

None of this crap is going to make a dent without serous spending cuts.

Guest


Guest

After several seconds of minimal consideration the White House rejected the latest proposal. Neither side is serious.

Sal

Sal

It appears that the Repukes have not internalized the fact that the Democrats are perfectly content to go over the fiscal cliff.

It's just not worth it to the Democrats to pass up this opportunity to break the Repukes' psychosis about marginal tax rates.

If they are unwilling to compromise because taxes will rise 4.6% on income over $250,000 then they cannot be negotiated with at all.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14849-8-principles-to-guide-democrats-in-the-fiscal-cliff-showdown

"...ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND. The wealthy have to pay their fair share of taxes. That's what the election was all about, and we won. It's only fair they pay more. They're taking home record share of national income and wealth, and have lowest effective tax rate in living memory.

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL. You're in a strong bargaining position. If you do nothing, the Bush tax cuts automatically expire in January, and we go back to rates during Clinton administration. Which isn't such a bad thing. As I recall we had a pretty good economy during the Clinton years.

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. After all the Bush tax cuts expire, have Republicans vote on an extending the Bush tax cut just for the middle-class. If they refuse and try to hold those tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the wealthy, it will show whose side they're on. They'll pay the price in 2014.

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS. Don't fall for Republican offers to limit some tax deductions on the wealthy. Demand we go back to higher tax rates on the wealthy and eliminate their unfair tax loopholes, so they truly start paying their fair share.

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS. Don't sacrifice Medicare or Social Security, or programs for the poor. Americans depend on these safety nets and can't afford any benefit cuts.

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY. Education, basic R&D, and infrastructure aren't spending; they're investments in our future prosperity. If the return on these investments is greater than the cost, they ought to be made, period.

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE. You want to cut, cut spending on the military - which now exceeds the military spending of the next 13 largest military spenders in the world combined. And cut corporate welfare - support to agribusiness, oil and gas, Big Pharma, big insurance, and Wall Street.

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION. Finally, Don't cut the budget deficit as long as unemployment remains high. Otherwise you'll cause the economy to contract, making the deficit even larger in proportion. That's the austerity trap Europe has fallen into. We need to create American prosperity, not European austerity.

Remember: Jobs come first."

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:Closing loopholes and cutting deductions sounds to me a more stable expectation for increasing revenues.

What's the hangup from the left over only raising rates? It sounds ideological to me.

None of this crap is going to make a dent without serous spending cuts.

And you know this...how?

Guest


Guest

The secret to consistency is simplicity... the complexity of the tax code is not an accident.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:Closing loopholes and cutting deductions sounds to me a more stable expectation for increasing revenues.

What's the hangup from the left over only raising rates? It sounds ideological to me.

None of this crap is going to make a dent without serous spending cuts.

Agreed, and they need to come from all points of the compass. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are going to have to give up some of the Big Government that they each love. That means Entitlements, plus Defense and all other programs that each side feels are important. It is the only way we will get there.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

NaNook

NaNook

Sal wrote:It appears that the Repukes have not internalized the fact that the Democrats are perfectly content to go over the fiscal cliff.

It's just not worth it to the Democrats to pass up this opportunity to break the Repukes' psychosis about marginal tax rates.

If they are unwilling to compromise because taxes will rise 4.6% on income over $250,000 then they cannot be negotiated with at all.

As a Repub 20+% taxpayer, let's go over the so-called cliff. I don't care any more....I'm tired of the BS.

Remember, the "upper 2%" will already be hit with a 4.7% Obamacare tax.

Will 10% be enough, or is more needed?

Obama said he needed 50 billion to offset the higher tax rates...why? The tax increases would be a drag on the economy...go figure Mr. Union Man...

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:All these whining Progressives and not one with a solution as to how to pay for this massive debt.

Where will this money come from? Please don't say the "RICH", they don't have anywhere NEAR this much money.

Current Debt . . . $16.3 TRILLION Plus the $1.2 TRILLION proposed by President Barack Hussein Obama for 2013. (No budget approved)

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $15.9 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY) (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs .$20.4 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $83.4 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $120.4 TRILLION!

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per household $1,053,398.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

PLUS ObamaCare and Untold TRILLIONS more in TAXES

Since far left radical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took office in January 1, 2007 our debt has increased by $6+ TRILLION.

SIX+ TRILLION since President Barack Hussein Obama took office. With Obama promise of ANOTHER $1.3 TRILLION DEBT FOR 2013.

Why do Progressives DEMAND a far lower standard of living for our children and their children? What makes you so superior, so selfish that you think you deserve far more of what they will earn?

Saddling our children and their children with this massive debt is immoral, indefensible and, as we have seen, the Progressives don’t even try.

Shameful and immoral!

When Social Security began, at what age did a person become eligible fro retirement benefits? What was the average life span of an American? What are they today?

Shuuuut up! You probably don't even have any kids and could care less about other people's. You just want everybody else to pay your fair share.
Greediness! Shameful and immoral!

Markle

Markle

PkrBum wrote:Closing loopholes and cutting deductions sounds to me a more stable expectation for increasing revenues.

What's the hangup from the left over only raising rates? It sounds ideological to me.

None of this crap is going to make a dent without serous spending cuts.

President Barack Hussein Obama has stated in the past that he did not care if RAISING RATES did NOT INCREASE REVENUES. He wanted to raise rates because is was more fair.

His and other Progressives goals are only to punish those who are successful, the budget and how much we owe is immaterial.

Barack Hussein Obama Admits He's a Socialist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8&feature=related

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

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