Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"..................The White House argues his plan totals $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years, though $1.1 trillion of that comes from savings on war-fighting expenses that all sides agree were going to happen anyway as the U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan shrink. Another $1.2 trillion has already been signed into law in last month’s debt deal and another $430 billion comes from lower interest payments because of the potential lower debt.

Yet another $450 billion comes from the tax increases the president proposed last week — and has already accounted for in new spending he wants on infrastructure, and other tax cuts.

That means in terms of actual new proposals, the president’s plan totals about $1.2 trillion, of which the lion’s share comes from his longstanding vow to raise taxes back to Clinton-era rates on the top income brackets. The rest is $580 billion in reductions to formula-driven entitlement programs such as Social Security, with much of the savings coming from reducing overpayments and finding waste.

Those $580 billion in newly proposed cuts are dwarfed nearly three-to-one by the $1.5 trillion in additional taxes the president wants to see going forward.

Mr. Obama said his plan calls for $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but he reaches that by re-counting cuts already in law or in the planning pipeline, and by factoring in lower debt service costs.

The White House said if Mr. Obama’s plans are enacted, debt held by the public would peak at above 75 percent of GDP in 2013 — a rise of 15 percentage points in just three years — but would then begin a slow decline.

Republicans, many of whom reject the idea of tax increases to solve the debt crisis, met the president’s call with scorn.

“Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth — or even meaningful deficit reduction,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. “The good news is that the joint committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House.”

That joint committee, a bipartisan 12-member congressional panel formed by last month’s debt deal, is working to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in proposed deficit reductions by the end of the year...................................."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... increases/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So basically the President is competing with the bipartisan deficit reduction committee - I'm sure the Democrats on the committee appreciate that...

FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don't Raise Taxes In A Recession
[youtube][/youtube]

This isn't a "Jobs Bill" (btw...there really isn't any "bill" yet...just talking points).

It's a TAX INCREASE proposal designed to pressure the deficit reduction committee to focus in on specific new sources of revenue.

Period.

There's NO "Jobs Bill".

Increasing taxes to pay for temporary smoke and mirrors jobs will simply make the situation worse.

The Dumbycrats still don't get it.

He's an absolute embarrassment.

Actually, if you eliminate the "savings" for waste, he wants $6.93 in new taxes for each $1 in cuts!

Ivytalk wrote:Actually, if you eliminate the "savings" for waste, he wants $6.93 in new taxes for each $1 in cuts!

He's a complete fvcking idiot. Hardly any Republicans or Libertarians and no more than a third - at most - of the independents believe his BS. Even some of his most ardent admirers among the poor folk who would purportedly benefit from his lunacy know that he is destroying jobs and the economy.

-
Don't get your picture taken with President Obama

http://www.lvrj.com/news/democrats-face ... ml?ref=548

BY LAURA MYERS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

One Nevada Democratic Party insider offered this tip for candidates running for public office in 2012: "Don't get your picture taken with President Obama," he said.
At least not while Barack Obama's approval ratings remain in the tank, in the high 30 percent to low 40 percent range, according to recent opinion polls.

He's right. Taxes do need to be raised. We can't cut our way out of the deficit.

dbackjon wrote:He's right. Taxes do need to be raised. We can't cut our way out of the deficit.

Can't spend your way out either....

clenz wrote:

dbackjon wrote:He's right. Taxes do need to be raised. We can't cut our way out of the deficit.

Can't spend your way out either....

About the only thing in Obama's entire policy that is shovel-ready is digging deeper into debt.

native wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Actually, if you eliminate the "savings" for waste, he wants $6.93 in new taxes for each $1 in cuts!

He's a complete fvcking idiot. Hardly any Republicans or Libertarians and no more than a third - at most - of the independents believe his BS. Even some of his most ardent admirers among the poor folk who would purportedly benefit from his lunacy know that he is destroying jobs and the economy.

The jobs were destroyed over the course of the last several decades. Actually attempting to pay for the debt you have accumulated is the honorable thing to do.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:

He's a complete fvcking idiot. Hardly any Republicans or Libertarians and no more than a third - at most - of the independents believe his BS. Even some of his most ardent admirers among the poor folk who would purportedly benefit from his lunacy know that he is destroying jobs and the economy.

The jobs were destroyed over the course of the last several decades. Actually attempting to pay for the debt you have accumulated is the honorable thing to do.

The honorable thing to do would be to stop spending our money.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
The jobs were destroyed over the course of the last several decades. Actually attempting to pay for the debt you have accumulated is the honorable thing to do.

The honorable thing to do would be to stop spending our money.

And pay for 10 years of wars and tax cuts.

"It's not class warfare. It's math!" What a douchebag.

"fairsharefairsharefairsharefairsharefairsharefairsharefairshare..."

Sure, Barry, sure.

Bronco wrote:

When he gets voted out there'll probably be a job waiting for him in Venezuela...

I'll agree to an increase for all to pay their "fair share" when the lower 45-50% income earners start paying ANY income tax...period. Find it disingenuous that the Libs are tugging on heartstrings, civic duty, patriotism, et al...to shame people into paying a higher percentage of their income while at the same time not calling out the other half for paying ANY into the system while using most of the social services funded by said taxes. I realize their percentage would account for maybe 1/2 a percentage point in the overall scheme, but it's the principle of shared sacrifice for the common good. If you have to have an income tax, it should be a flat tax w/o the loopholes so all pay theri fair share, regardless of how much or how little you actually make.....

Appaholic wrote:I'll agree to an increase for all to pay their "fair share" when the lower 45-50% income earners start paying ANY income tax...period. Find it disingenuous that the Libs are tugging on heartstrings, civic duty, patriotism, et al...to shame people into paying a higher percentage of their income while at the same time not calling out the other half for paying ANY into the system while using most of the social services funded by said taxes. I realize their percentage would account for maybe 1/2 a percentage point in the overall scheme, but it's the principle of shared sacrifice for the common good. If you have to have an income tax, it should be a flat tax w/o the loopholes so all pay theri fair share, regardless of how much or how little you actually make.....

They can cal it a "user fee" if they like, just as long as they pay something.

Ivytalk wrote:

Appaholic wrote:I'll agree to an increase for all to pay their "fair share" when the lower 45-50% income earners start paying ANY income tax...period. Find it disingenuous that the Libs are tugging on heartstrings, civic duty, patriotism, et al...to shame people into paying a higher percentage of their income while at the same time not calling out the other half for paying ANY into the system while using most of the social services funded by said taxes. I realize their percentage would account for maybe 1/2 a percentage point in the overall scheme, but it's the principle of shared sacrifice for the common good. If you have to have an income tax, it should be a flat tax w/o the loopholes so all pay theri fair share, regardless of how much or how little you actually make.....

They can cal it a "user fee" if they like, just as long as they pay something.

Discover the Obama re-elect narrative.

Worked like a charm in Minnesota's Gov race in 2010 - an awful year for Dems...

Call for something reasonable - watch the right-wing shit their drawers and defend millionaires while attacking Social Security and Medicare... gee, wonder how that will play out with voters?

Obama's tax plan (or variations on the theme) have about 60% public support
A balanced approach to solving problems (cuts and increases) has about 68% support
A HUGE majority 75%+ believe creating jobs is more important than controlling spending.

This is a winning narrative for Obama and the Dems... the GOP - knowing no other mode but "attack attack attack" seem poised to hurl themselves on this one too - just as planned.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Discover the Obama re-elect narrative.

Worked like a charm in Minnesota's Gov race in 2010 - an awful year for Dems...

Call for something reasonable - watch the right-wing shit their drawers and defend millionaires while attacking Social Security and Medicare... gee, wonder how that will play out with voters?

Obama's tax plan (or variations on the theme) have about 60% public support
A balanced approach to solving problems (cuts and increases) has about 68% support
A HUGE majority 75%+ believe creating jobs is more important than controlling spending.
This is a winning narrative for Obama and the Dems... the GOP - knowing no other mode but "attack attack attack" seem poised to hurl themselves on this one too - just as planned.

This worked for Obama '08 when he had no record to run on. Obama '12 has a record wrt jobs, and it's not a good one. For all the trillions spent he hasn't put any dent into unemployment. His sole hope is really on the conks running a weak, polarizing candidate.

Rob Iola wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Discover the Obama re-elect narrative.

Worked like a charm in Minnesota's Gov race in 2010 - an awful year for Dems...

Call for something reasonable - watch the right-wing shit their drawers and defend millionaires while attacking Social Security and Medicare... gee, wonder how that will play out with voters?

Obama's tax plan (or variations on the theme) have about 60% public support
A balanced approach to solving problems (cuts and increases) has about 68% support
A HUGE majority 75%+ believe creating jobs is more important than controlling spending.
This is a winning narrative for Obama and the Dems... the GOP - knowing no other mode but "attack attack attack" seem poised to hurl themselves on this one too - just as planned.

This worked for Obama '08 when he had no record to run on. Obama '12 has a record wrt jobs, and it's not a good one. For all the trillions spent he hasn't put any dent into unemployment. His sole hope is really on the conks running a weak, polarizing candidate.

+1
Obama running on a platform of what he's done for the economy would be one set in sinking sand. He'd have to paint the GOP as complete obstructionists while continuing to blame the prior administration and the gods for why he didn't get anything done. Either that or somehow convince the public that his programs allowed the US economy to dodge a bullet and that it could have been much worse.

That being said, I haven't seen anything out of the GOP yet that gets me excited. If things don't improve economically before the donks and conks begin stumping hard, the GOP may not need it. I think that while the White House won't come out and say it, they are absolutely playing the class warfare card as an undertheme to whatever they use as a platform.

ASUG8 wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: This worked for Obama '08 when he had no record to run on. Obama '12 has a record wrt jobs, and it's not a good one. For all the trillions spent he hasn't put any dent into unemployment. His sole hope is really on the conks running a weak, polarizing candidate.

+1
Obama running on a platform of what he's done for the economy would be one set in sinking sand. He'd have to paint the GOP as complete obstructionists while continuing to blame the prior administration and the gods for why he didn't get anything done. Either that or somehow convince the public that his programs allowed the US economy to dodge a bullet and that it could have been much worse.

That being said, I haven't seen anything out of the GOP yet that gets me excited. If things don't improve economically before the donks and conks begin stumping hard, the GOP may not need it. I think that while the White House won't come out and say it, they are absolutely playing the class warfare card as an undertheme to whatever they use as a platform.

here's the problem for conks:

voters are proving to have a longer memory than they are given credit for - the VAST majority still blame Bush for the economy... so pinning the economy on Obama isn't sticking for the GOP

also - the GOP HAVE been obstructionists - more focused on beating Obama and making him look weak than doing any actual work - and the public is PISSED. Obama's numbers aren't great - but the GOP's are abysmal.

Looking at the GOP field moreover - the only candidate that shows sustained strength against Obama is Romney... and right now his path to the nomination looks cloudy...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
+1
Obama running on a platform of what he's done for the economy would be one set in sinking sand. He'd have to paint the GOP as complete obstructionists while continuing to blame the prior administration and the gods for why he didn't get anything done. Either that or somehow convince the public that his programs allowed the US economy to dodge a bullet and that it could have been much worse.

That being said, I haven't seen anything out of the GOP yet that gets me excited. If things don't improve economically before the donks and conks begin stumping hard, the GOP may not need it. I think that while the White House won't come out and say it, they are absolutely playing the class warfare card as an undertheme to whatever they use as a platform.

here's the problem for conks:

voters are proving to have a longer memory than they are given credit for - the VAST majority still blame Bush for the economy... so pinning the economy on Obama isn't sticking for the GOP

also - the GOP HAVE been obstructionists - more focused on beating Obama and making him look weak than doing any actual work - and the public is PISSED. Obama's numbers aren't great - but the GOP's are abysmal.

Looking at the GOP field moreover - the only candidate that shows sustained strength against Obama is Romney... and right now his path to the nomination looks cloudy...

The 2010 Democratic washout in Congress wasn't that long ago and IMO was reflective of the public perception that (1) the Dems in the House weren't getting the job done, and (2) it was a shot across the bow for a pretty ineffective president who was nearly two years into his term of promising change. Since then, the GOP (and Tea partiers) for better or worse have checked the rampant spending - the debt ceiling debate was a debacle for both sides, but generally moreso for the GOP.

I'm not sold on the public blaming Bush now nearly 3 yrs into BO's term - the economy was already sliding when Obama began his campaign, he said he had the answers and has failed to deliver a cohesive response that delivered anything that can quantitively be demonstrated except for 400K census jobs. He can play MMQB on what might have happened to the economy had the stimulus not been enacted, but the truth is we'll really never know the extent of its effectiveness. I don't think his healthcare "triumph" has really been much of a feather in his cap to show to voters since most didn't back it in the form that was passed. Most of what I've seen opinionwise regarding his most recent jobs plan has been lukewarm at best.

Like I said, the GOP isn't really exciting me with any credible alternatives either. Should be interesting to see how both sides spin the last 3+ yrs when we get heavily into the campaigns.