henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 27, 2011 22:22:52 GMT -5
Shirina wrote:
Does that mean you never heard about the components they found, some of which were sent to Canada?
And having lost your trust of Bush, did you also lose your trust in the UN? It was because of their reliance on the same intelligence as Bush had that they authorized Bush to go into Iraq.
Or are you saying Bush cooked the intelligence?
The latter seems to be your position. If it is you should recuse yourself from comment on anybody's critiques on Obama in order to avoid charges of unmitigated bias.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2011 22:23:10 GMT -5
Obama would not have gotten as far as he did if that particular skeleton was true. Lots of politicians have sexual peccadillos and it may often be to their advantage not to point fingers, but don't expect them to keep quiet about an invalid candidacy. Candidates for political office have been thrown off the ballot for things like forged or insufficient signatures on nominating petitions. i agree with this actually. this silly "nobody knows Obama" stuff got old a year ago. now it is rancid. poisonous. let's face facts: he is ineffective, so it really doesn't matter. wait a year and vote him out. in the mean time, start a business or, if you own one, hire some people who need jobs. this conspiracy crap is for the birds.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2011 22:25:42 GMT -5
President Barack Obama is the President & I think we should let it go. Conservatives could better spend their time organizing voters to replace him the next election. Then if elected they should spend their time repealing just about everything the man passed during his time in the white house. thank you, tex. we finally agree. unless you don't believe in our system, wait your turn, and then change things.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 27, 2011 22:25:43 GMT -5
Ed, we've been through this idiocy before. Moonbeam has confirmed that I have not registered to this site by any other name, and I'm certainly not Mkitty as you once contended.
Should I PM Moonbeam and have her RE-verify this information for you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2011 22:28:32 GMT -5
Provocative thread, and you can see by the instant and hostile response from the left that they are very, very protective of this man. A lot is hidden. Some will come out and some won't, but one thing is clear; we have seen the last election where the candidates are not thoroughly vetted... i am not protecting Obama. i would like to think that am protecting our nation against lunatics. we need clear headed people, reasoning our way through a very difficult economic situation, right now. we don't need to get wound up about who's daddy our president is. i don't honestly give a crap. if we can survive Bush, we can survive anything. president company included. for the record, i think Obama was adequately vetted. we don't need to see a guy's kindergarden transcripts and take a bone marrow sample from his dead momma to know what kind of job he will do. i really resent that it has gotten to this point, and i hope that people can run on their record, and leave their private lives to them, at some point in the future.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2011 22:34:32 GMT -5
I am sure djl- you can deal with it, but after a year of the same rhetoric, it's not like there are so many new people who come to these boards and need to be educated. It has gotten so old, thus so many moderates who would love a discussion of honeast merits have given up and left here. The same rhetoric, again and again and again, never changing and because of the freedom allowed here to post anything at all, no matter how off the wall and untruthful it is , as long as not a personal attack on another poster, it gets old. Especially when many who would love a chance to actualy discuss topics and the man and his ideas and policies find that the last thing wanted by the few who are most vocal is open honest and fair discussion, the last thing on their minds. More the beliefe that they seem to have a platform to change the minds of others , promote their warped paranoia either by true convictions, which seems to some of us as not to be there, more the possibility by some of we posters that we are dealing with those who enjoy promoting anger, confusion for confusion sake. Basically the things that those who enjoy Trolling these types of sites..thus earning the name of that endeaver, just being Trolls and as one knows, the last thing one ever gets from Trolls is a fair discussion or discourse with others, just not their thing, not on their agenda. Sherina you have said it as well as anyone here..as to why the rhetoric we have been exposed to for over a year here..thanks for saying in so few words what some of us, me included, have taken to many words to express correctly. The reason by a few here, for their continuouse blow hard rhetoric, though I still feel that my suggestion that for some of them, the fact of their being the caracture of those mystical creatures whoe's abodes seem to be under bridges also fits to a a tee as to what they really are, and as I suggsted, there is no sense even trying to communicate or have a dialogue with them, it's not on their agenda, IMHO. the thing about conspiracy theories is this: combatting them adds to the conspiracy. i know that it sounds nutty, but it is true! if you confront a "believer", they will consider you part of the brainwashed masses that don't believe, because you were attacked by alien spores from Pluto or some such cal. no, what needs to be done is to not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill. tell them firmly "i have no time for this drivel, you are a terminal fool". otherwise they make you as crazy as they are. (previous paragraph is paraphrased version of Words Of Advice by WS Burroughs)
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 27, 2011 22:40:53 GMT -5
I am sure djl- you can deal with it, but after a year of the same rhetoric, it's not like there are so many new people who come to these boards and need to be educated. It has gotten so old, thus so many moderates who would love a discussion of honeast merits have given up and left here. The same rhetoric, again and again and again, never changing and because of the freedom allowed here to post anything at all, no matter how off the wall and untruthful it is , as long as not a personal attack on another poster, it gets old. Especially when many who would love a chance to actualy discuss topics and the man and his ideas and policies find that the last thing wanted by the few who are most vocal is open honest and fair discussion, the last thing on their minds. More the beliefe that they seem to have a platform to change the minds of others , promote their warped paranoia either by true convictions, which seems to some of us as not to be there, more the possibility by some of we posters that we are dealing with those who enjoy promoting anger, confusion for confusion sake. Basically the things that those who enjoy Trolling these types of sites..thus earning the name of that endeaver, just being Trolls and as one knows, the last thing one ever gets from Trolls is a fair discussion or discourse with others, just not their thing, not on their agenda. Sherina you have said it as well as anyone here..as to why the rhetoric we have been exposed to for over a year here..thanks for saying in so few words what some of us, me included, have taken to many words to express correctly. The reason by a few here, for their continuouse blow hard rhetoric, though I still feel that my suggestion that for some of them, the fact of their being the caracture of those mystical creatures whoe's abodes seem to be under bridges also fits to a a tee as to what they really are, and as I suggsted, there is no sense even trying to communicate or have a dialogue with them, it's not on their agenda, IMHO. the thing about conspiracy theories is this: combatting them adds to the conspiracy. i know that it sounds nutty, but it is true! if you confront a "believer", they will consider you part of the brainwashed masses that don't believe, because you were attacked by alien spores from Pluto or some such cal. no, what needs to be done is to not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill. tell them firmly "i have no time for this drivel, you are a terminal fool". otherwise they make you as crazy as they are. (previous paragraph is paraphrased version of Words Of Advice by WS Burroughs)Again, short and right on.. here, you deserve it..
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 27, 2011 22:50:19 GMT -5
Agree hell!. What djlungrot wrote is that the Constitution doesn't mean anything to him.
At least it seems so. Of course he COULD be saying that only PART of the Constitution doesn't mean anything to him. I wonder whaat part it will be tomorrow , , and the next day, and next week.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 27, 2011 23:17:44 GMT -5
When the president commits the United States and its young men and women to a long combat mission and a decade of "nation building," it had better be for more than a few components.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 27, 2011 23:24:02 GMT -5
Ed, that's enough of that! You have no idea who's registered here under what names, and you're not going to! Do not be accusing people of things you know nothing about.
mmhmm P&M Moderator
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 27, 2011 23:29:09 GMT -5
"If Obama is as bad as you people claim he is, then I find it odd that you cannot disparage him based on what IS known instead of sniffing around his garbage cans trying to find what ISN'T known. If I didn't know better, I would think that your political arguments are weak, and you know they are, so you've been chomping at the bit hoping for some definitive scandal that will utterly ruin the man. Perhaps some indecent pictures like Wiener, or maybe an illegitimate child or maybe you're hoping to find out he cheated on Michelle.
You want another blow job in the Oval Office. And you're praying to every deity in heaven that you find one."
It's pathetic.
I think Obama is a fair president. Not spectacular, not horrible, and certainly not "the worst president ever" as some have said. He isn't even close to that, but those who hate with irrational fervor care nothing for reality."
Exactly. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 27, 2011 23:32:15 GMT -5
When the president commits the United States and its young men and women to a long combat mission and a decade of "nation building," it had better be for more than a few components. ...I was reluctant to join this thread... but this raised my eyebrow... ...imo, one WMD was sufficient to go after... certainly "a few" would also warrant our action...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,490
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 27, 2011 23:54:38 GMT -5
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 28, 2011 0:00:16 GMT -5
The whole operation was sloppy from the very beginning, starting with the military not bothering to secure the areas it traversed through. Instead, it raced to the capital as if it were some European army fighting in the Napoleonic Wars. This resulted in exposed supply lines and huge pockets of territory where there were no eyes and ears. This is why truck convoys were constantly blasted as they made their way from Basra to Baghdad. It was ridiculous.
This should have been conducted like a "hounds to hunters" operation, but it wasn't.
And that's just the strategic side. The elimination of Saddam and securing of any WMDs should have been a spec op, not a full scale invasion. The idea of nation building was ludicrous, and "bringing Democracy to Iraq" only set us up with another feeble and unstable nation America is going to have to expend resources to protect.
We should have been in and out of there, end of story.
And that began to turn me against Bush. Hell, I don't even fault him for his famous "Bushisms" as they were just silly mistakes. But when he and his administration began to get snarky with the American public, Bush totally lost my support.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. There's really no point in rehashing events that occurred almost a decade ago. Unless some amazing bit of history is revealed that changes my perception of this fiasco, I'm not budging.
But I will give the troops on the ground a lot of credit. This could have turned into another Vietnam, but through their courage and strength, managed to make headway even against an unseen and often unknown enemy.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 28, 2011 0:06:28 GMT -5
The whole operation was sloppy from the very beginning, starting with the military not bothering to secure the areas it traversed through. Instead, it raced to the capital as if it were some European army fighting in the Napoleonic Wars. This resulted in exposed supply lines and huge pockets of territory where there were no eyes and ears. This is why truck convoys were constantly blasted as they made their way from Basra to Baghdad. It was ridiculous. This should have been conducted like a "hounds to hunters" operation, but it wasn't. And that's just the strategic side. The elimination of Saddam and securing of any WMDs should have been a spec op, not a full scale invasion. The idea of nation building was ludicrous, and "bringing Democracy to Iraq" only set us up with another feeble and unstable nation America is going to have to expend resources to protect. We should have been in and out of there, end of story. And that began to turn me against Bush. Hell, I don't even fault him for his famous "Bushisms" as they were just silly mistakes. But when he and his administration began to get snarky with the American public, Bush totally lost my support. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. There's really no point in rehashing events that occurred almost a decade ago. Unless some amazing bit of history is revealed that changes my perception of this fiasco, I'm not budging. But I will give the troops on the ground a lot of credit. This could have turned into another Vietnam, but through their courage and strength, managed to make headway even against an unseen and often unknown enemy. ...how it was done is certainly open for critique... that it was done is not, imo... and now, it seems, that you think so, too...
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 28, 2011 0:09:09 GMT -5
And when did I register for this site? Oh, that's right ... Dec. 2010! During Bush's first term, I was on a forum run by a major radio talk show (no, not a political talk show), and during his second term, I was on the MSN US News board. Were you there at either of them? And if so, what was your username? Otherwise, you have no idea who I did or didn't defend, and I wouldn't be too quick to assume I hated Bush from the beginning. I didn't particularly want Bush to win, but I supported him even through Iraq. It was when the WMDs didn't turn up that I began to doubt. But you go right ahead and pretend to be psychic if that makes you feel better. Perhaps you can land a gig with Madame Cleo or the Pyschic Hotline. Shirina, you were on the old P&M board with us. I believe that is what Ed was referring to. p&m=piss and moan
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 28, 2011 2:06:32 GMT -5
Here's one I was not aware of. I'm still not sure I'm aware of it, so I'll ask. Did Obama ever get a nose job? Here's two links to what is purporte to be a before and after picture with a caption that he did in fact have his nose worked on. I'm posting two links because I tried only posting the first one, but it won't let my computer open that one. I can open them both by cutting and pasting to my search toolbar. The "post image" feature won't let either picture post here. There are some interesting comments following the photos. Not much different than what we see here. , , , but interesting. plasticsergeant.com/files/imagecache/original/picture/barack-obama.jpgplasticsergeant.com/barack-obamas-nose-job
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jun 28, 2011 2:34:22 GMT -5
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jun 28, 2011 2:38:15 GMT -5
Shirina wrote: Does that mean you never heard about the components they found, some of which were sent to Canada? And having lost your trust of Bush, did you also lose your trust in the UN? It was because of their reliance on the same intelligence as Bush had that they authorized Bush to go into Iraq. Or are you saying Bush cooked the intelligence? The latter seems to be your position. If it is you should recuse yourself from comment on anybody's critiques on Obama in order to avoid charges of unmitigated bias. ... k to you henry!
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 28, 2011 3:43:46 GMT -5
I don't believe we should have putzed around in Iraq for 9+ years, but as long as we have boots on the ground and birds in the air, I will ALWAYS support our troops. I'm not General Patton. I'm just an "armchair general," as some might call it, but I do know a thing or two. I believe that if we're going to wage war, then we wage war. Once that decision is made, then we go in ... all the way, with everything we have.
I just feel Iraq was handled wrong because I don't believe we were initially prepared for a large insurgency. I think too many of the top brass felt that Baghdad in 2003 would end just like Paris 1944, and they totally ignored the Middle Eastern culture. They felt that, once Baghdad was captured and Saddam ousted, the military would throw down their arms, the civilians would dance in the streets by the millions, and Iraqi girls would be throwing rose petals at our soldiers' feet as they marched by.
I guess they missed that one by a mile, huh?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jun 28, 2011 3:52:23 GMT -5
I was there once in awhile, that is true, though I wasn't a regular poster there. At any rate, yes, by the time I landed at the old P&M board, I was already quite jaded with Bush.
What people like Ed must understand is that I gave Bush a chance, and if he had been on some of the previous forums during Bush's early years, Ed would have seen me defend him and the Iraq war with everything that I had. I was still an undergrad in college during 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq war, and I even argued and debated with liberals right there in the classroom.
I'm sure many here think I'm some sort of pinko commie tree-hugging liberal, but in reality, I'm not. I AM liberal by comparison, that is for certain, but I am not who people think I am.
So, to confront Ed, yes, I DID vociferously defend Bush against the left-wingers at the time. But as Ripley used to say: Believe it ... or not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 16:00:27 GMT -5
We know who Obama is. There was a lot of investigation. Hannity did extensive programs on Obama's background and there are lots of books written. But, at this point, it is a pointless battle. He isn't going to be removed from office even if he was ineligible. He is in the position and will be there until the election . Better to focus on putting forth a better leader. precisely. it is pretty clear at this point that he is not going to turn this country into an Islamic state at this point (yes, some people really said that) and it is also clear that the red tide has been stemmed (take that any way you like), so whatever damage his critics perceive is already done. time to focus on a more hopeful tomorrow, and get back to work. Orly Taitz's 15 mins are up.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 16:14:00 GMT -5
Agree hell!. What djlungrot wrote is that the Constitution doesn't mean anything to him. At least it seems so. Of course he COULD be saying that only PART of the Constitution doesn't mean anything to him. I wonder whaat part it will be tomorrow , , and the next day, and next week. i would ask you what part of the constitution, but i think i can guess. it is the natural born citizen part, right? there are THREE schools of thought on this. one school of thought is the one you just put me in: the folks who either don't know or don't care about the constitution. the second school are the folks that think that believe that "natural born" means that you are born on US soil of US parent s. well, Obama certainly qualifies in terms of US soil, unless you are a conspiracist, which i addressed above. that leaves "US parent s". however, something like (13) presidents have only had (1) US parent, and they were all found to qualify, so you have that to contend with. the third school is one that believes that the US Constitution is a foundational skeleton for democracy, but that it is by no means a complete set of laws for governance, nor does it define, specifically, what it's own terminology means. this group believes that it is the Amendments and the US Code that provides flesh to the skeleton of the Constitution, and gives it the life blood it needs to actually create the perfect union envisioned in the preamble. you have accused me of being in the first group, and i resent it, Henry. i belong to the third. it doesn't mean i love the constitution any less than you do, i just view it differently. and for me, Obama is qualified according to USC1401: www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 16:16:20 GMT -5
Here's one I was not aware of. I'm still not sure I'm aware of it, so I'll ask. Did Obama ever get a nose job? Here's two links to what is purporte to be a before and after picture with a caption that he did in fact have his nose worked on. I'm posting two links because I tried only posting the first one, but it won't let my computer open that one. I can open them both by cutting and pasting to my search toolbar. The "post image" feature won't let either picture post here. There are some interesting comments following the photos. Not much different than what we see here. , , , but interesting. plasticsergeant.com/files/imagecache/original/picture/barack-obama.jpgplasticsergeant.com/barack-obamas-nose-jobdo nose jobs disqualify a candidate for office?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 16:17:23 GMT -5
I was there once in awhile, that is true, though I wasn't a regular poster there. At any rate, yes, by the time I landed at the old P&M board, I was already quite jaded with Bush. What people like Ed must understand is that I gave Bush a chance, and if he had been on some of the previous forums during Bush's early years, Ed would have seen me defend him and the Iraq war with everything that I had. I was still an undergrad in college during 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq war, and I even argued and debated with liberals right there in the classroom. I'm sure many here think I'm some sort of pinko commie tree-hugging liberal, but in reality, I'm not. I AM liberal by comparison, that is for certain, but I am not who people think I am. So, to confront Ed, yes, I DID vociferously defend Bush against the left-wingers at the time. But as Ripley used to say: Believe it ... or not. i defended Bush until 1/29/03. from that day forward, i ceased defending him.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 28, 2011 16:17:57 GMT -5
Published June 28, 2011 Obama, Biden plan debt session with Senate Dems JIM KUHNHENN At least they're still talking. While President Barack Obama and congressional Republican leaders have publicly dug in their heels on critical debt-limit negotiations, Obama's spokesman said Tuesday the president and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell will continue discussions. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden spent more time in the Oval Office on Monday with McConnell than they did with a fellow Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The president and vice president have scheduled another meeting for Wednesday to consult with Reid - and also invited Sens. Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer, both members of the Democratic leadership team. The White House did not announce a new meeting with Republicans. But Obama spokesman Jay Carney called the meeting with McConnell "useful" and said that "importantly" they agreed to continue meeting. "They will continue to talk," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart had said after the meeting. But about what? To be sure, neither McConnell nor Obama is fond of small talk. Obama and Democrats insist that for there to be a deal on reducing long-term deficits, any agreement must include some tax increases on the wealthy or on corporations, mostly through closed loopholes. But before McConnell even walked into the white House, he had flatly rejected tax increases. "It's time Washington take the hit," he said, "not the taxpayers." That would seem to put a damper on the conversation. But the deal is crucial to winning congressional support for raising the government's borrowing limit, a step it must take by Aug. 2 to avoid a potential default. The current debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion would likely have to be increased by $2.4 trillion to last through the end of next year. Republicans want an equal amount in deficit reduction over the next 10 years and say they cannot support increasing the debt ceiling without a budget deal at the same time. "Compromise and an agreement will depend on each side being willing to accept some tough choices," Carney said Monday. Failure to raise the ceiling "would do serious damage," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, whose views are frequently cited by the Obama administration. "It will unhinge the already very fragile collective psyche." But Zandi said that if Republicans are being asked to give up their deep-seated opposition to tax increases, then Obama needs to sacrifice as well by abandoning a major campaign promise, such as his demand that Congress end Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier Americans. Another option is for Obama to propose his own plan for further savings in Medicare. Republicans might find that appealing after the House Republican plan ran into broad public opposition and became a campaign issue for Democrats. "The president needs to take a chance himself, and do something that shows he's willing to give up something that's very large to move this forward," Zandi said in an interview. The president stepped up his personal involvement in negotiations after bipartisan talks led by Biden stalled last week. Republican lawmakers abandoned the negotiations, saying the issues still on the table had to be addressed by the president. Obama already has met privately with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and with House Democrats. Until Friday, Biden had held a series of meetings over several weeks with bipartisan teams from the House and Senate, focusing on areas where the two sides were amenable to cuts until the dispute over taxes led Republicans to walk out. The White House is pushing for some tax increases on the wealthy or the elimination of tax breaks for big companies and wealthy individuals as part of a deficit-cutting plan. During the Biden-led negotiations, Democrats proposed about $400 billion in additional tax revenue, including ending subsidies to oil and gas companies, an idea that has failed previously in the Senate. The administration also would tax private equity or hedge fund managers at higher income tax rates instead of lower capital gains rates, change the depreciation formula on corporate jets, and limit itemized deductions for wealthy taxpayers. It also has called for repealing a tax benefit for an inventory accounting practice used by many manufacturers. All in all, Obama has proposed more than $600 billion in tax increases and would like a ratio of $1 in tax revenue for every $3 in spending reductions. "At the end of the day I would be surprised if it was that 1-to-3 ratio the White House was talking about," said Chris Krueger, a policy and politics analyst at MF Global's Washington Research Group. "That is probably a bridge too far for congressional Republicans. But I wouldn't be surprised if there a couple of ceremonial revenue raisers." While Republicans insist on no tax increases, they have been willing to consider other forms of revenue, particularly higher user fees. "Revenues have never been off the table," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's Republican participant in the Biden talks. "There are some user fees that are probably way low compared to when they were originally set." Obama's budget wants $85 billion in new fees over 10 years, including raising the airline passenger security fee from a maximum of $5 per one-way trip to $11. Other proposals range from Food and Drug Administration food inspection fees to duck hunting fees. The $85 billion includes a federal auction of parts of the broadcast spectrum and the sale of surplus federal property. Complicating matters is the congressional schedule. While the Senate is in session, the House is off this week ahead of the July 4 holiday. The House is scheduled to return next week when the Senate will be away. That makes it difficult for leaders in both chambers to find consensus among their respective memberships. "It's a really delicate balance and there is not a lot of time left," Krueger said. Read more: www.theolympian.com/2011/06/28/v-print/1704343/obama-biden-plan-debt-session.html#ixzz1QbkDYHEQ
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 28, 2011 16:34:37 GMT -5
And they don't even have a budget yet. If the taxes collected by Washington have been less than the checks they write, how long will it be before they ask for another increase in the debt limit, and then another?
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell know the country is between a rock and a hard place. Wouldn't it be nice if at least ONE of the Obama team had a grasp of the same financial concept.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 28, 2011 16:36:27 GMT -5
And they don't even have a budget yet. If the taxes collected by Washington have been less than the checks they write, how long will it be before they ask for another increase in the debt limit, and then another? John Boehner and Mitch McConnell know the country is between a rock and a hard place. Wouldn't it be nice if at least ONE of the Obama team had a grasp of the same financial concept. quick question henry- do you think the government should spend more than it takes in under any circumstances? if so, what circumstances? if not, how should it deal with national emergencies such as global wars?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 21:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2011 16:48:55 GMT -5
Repubs know, at this point, that their jobs are on the line if they screw up and hurt this country. Dems do not have that fear, because their supporters support all the things that are taking us down. Repubs sure as hell better do what their constituents want, or heads will roll. As it should be in a gov't by the people, for the people. I see some on both sides flipping around like beached whales, because they got elected in places, and by people, that were deceived by their message. They never should have been elected if they lied, and now they need to leave ASAP. It's time to get serious, and anyone not willing needs to exit gov't. Our country is in the worst shape in my entire life. Play time for politicians is over.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 28, 2011 17:02:43 GMT -5
I will be surprised as all hell if there is a deal with the debt reduction...Obama is now in Iowa trying to steal Palin's political thunder in that state....so he is campaigning while the dems and repubs are at an impasse on the budget spending and revenue issues..
|
|