so the cutbacks start?
by Roger NC - 2/26/13 3:34 PM
Anticipating cutbacks, releasing illegal immigrants in custody awaiting deportation court hearings and orders are released to cut back on cost.
by: Roger NC February 26, 2013 3:34 PM PST
0 people like this thread
They're still playing us
and just turned the page of the sheet music. Our president has shifted into community organizer mode again as well. This is a better script with more drama and intrigue than any of the Oscar candidates the other night.
(NT) I won't dispute that any
We didn't have to be THIS broke.
We didn't HAVE to be broke at all !!!
This debt is an artificialy created crsis. A deliberately CREATED, artificial crisis. A crisis madeup and invented solely in the intrest of the rich.
And even that's not really been the point! It's been created to further drive down the working poor. It's a fig newton of our imaginations and should never have been given substance. But here we are.
There's history here. The tax cuts through the last 40 or 50 years were never really about what they said they were about. They've always really been about killing SS and Medicare. And the rest is hokum. Pure and simple.
why do illegals get court hearings before deportation?
Is it to establish they are illegal before we push them out of the bus across the border? Can't we fly them further south and drop them out with parachutes, so they will be gone a few days at least before coming back?
In order to make his point
BO will need to deliberately make the cuts as painful as possible, even if he is given the authority to move money around to make the cuts less painful. He HAS to be able to blame the Republicans......but it is beginning to backfire on him. Even where he had first responders standing behind him talking about how the cuts will affect them even while knowing that federal funds don't pay them......they're paid from local and state funds.
Fear is the game, and he's been playing it for so long that he's entrenched in it and refuses to see any other way to get what he wants, and as long as he has Reid also playing that game, the Senate will do nothing to help allay that fear.
What needs to happen, IMO, is that the majority
of US citizens reject these political tactics and let the politicians know it. We need to take care of each other and let the president and congress stew in their own juice with no one coming to their rescue.
Part of the
Republicans' proposal from the House includes not paying either the House or the Senate members, and Pelosi came out publicly and said they are are still entitled to their paychecks....even if that means taking paychecks away from others who might be furloughed or laid off.
pay them per day attended, not salary
maybe they'll show up for work more.
we want them to show up more?
I'd like them to go back to the schedule of Congress when it was first formed. Maybe then they'd not have so much time there to mess things up so badly.
I don't care if they knew they'd never reach
an alternative to this sequestration, I thought it was totally irrsponsible taking a week's vacation with 2 weeks left until the deadline.
If most had taken a week off with only two weeks left to save the company, they'd be fired.
That is, all lower than top managment, they would have wept crocodile tears for the jobs lost while they banked 10 years of salary as their parachute.
Top management, congress, mostly dogs.
What was the point of
sticking around when you have a President on his 100 city tour and unwilling to come back into town long enough to actually do his job? Even if the House all left, the Senate run by Reid could have stayed in town to do THEIR job, which they finally got around to doing yesterday and today....and both votes failed anyhow. BO had no problem calling in Dems in the Senate and arm twisting during Obamacare.....and this was far more important, but he's more comfortable campaigning than working at the job he was elected to do.
the point is NONE of them should have left
don't excuse the house members by saying Reid could have done it.
I'm glad you like the cuts coming up.
Oh well, we need to cut, we need to not raise taxes, well that's what will happen.
I'll bet everyone will complain about the cuts affecting them and say they should have cut someone else.
specifically blamed the Senate yesterday (however, he pointed directly at Senate Republicans and let the Dems 'off that hook') and not the House. And BO also specifically said that HE didn't want the authority that Republicans offered to him of being able to make decisions on what got cut and what didn't because that authority (part of the bill the House just passed) only had all the sequestration cuts that he could move around and NO new revenue. BO is perfectly fine with allowing the cuts to happen no matter what he's saying on the campaign trail......if he doesn't get the extra money he wants, he's willing to let the cuts happen and he'll attempt to blame it all on the Republicans like he has been doing intensely for the last month or so. He has no sense of even being partially responsible for this happening, and you seem to be okay with letting him off that hook as well.
RE: He has no sense of even being partially responsible
BO also specifically said that HE didn't want the authority that Republicans offered to him of being able to make decisions on what got cut and what didn't because that authority (part of the bill the House just passed) only had all the sequestration cuts that he could move around and NO new revenue.
Isn't he taking responsibility for ANY/ALL NEW REVENUE?
Only if he gets that revenue
by TONI H - 3/1/13 4:27 AM
In Reply to: RE: He has no sense of even being partially responsible by JP Bill
But revenue wasn't part of the sequestration deal........it only involved cuts....and even at that, it's only a 2% cut on AUTOMATIC INCREASED BUDGET AMOUNTS....it's not actual cuts to anything. That's what makes the pres' and Dems' stand on all of this ridiculous.
(NT) like it wasn't actually a new tax increase?
$85B of a $3.6T budget
is about 2% because it is actually only 2% of the automatic increase that is above the base amount that they got last year.........and only $44B of it happens in 2013, the rest happens over a ten year period of time. If we can afford to send $60B for Sandy (and much of THAT was pork with Sandy victims getting around half), we can definitely afford to cut 2% out of an automatic raise for government.
The defense cuts are in addition to the $400B in cuts that is already in place from two years ago and an additional $44B would hurt pretty badly if authorization isn't approved by the Senate and BO next week that would allow department heads to decide where to make those cuts instead of across the board.
Paul Ryan said this afternoon that he has already made up a new proposal to send to the Senate next week that will give each department authority to 'pick and choose' where they can most efficiently make those 'cuts' without hurting priority items. He has also got the House budget for 2013 ready to be delivered to the Senate within two weeks. BO is already late getting HIS budget to the Senate, as usual, and Reid has ZILCH again for the fifth year in a row.
As for your question "like it wasn't actually a new tax increase?", I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the people having FICA put back into place? Or are you talking about the 'new tax rate' on people making over $400M/year?
automatic raise for government
not sure where that comes in.
But on a side track, report tonight, Congressional salaries are exempted from reduction, but their office budget isn't. So they'll keep everything they've given theirselves, and lay off a clerk.
tax increase on over $400k to 39.6%, wasn't that what is was before the Bush, temporary tax cuts? maybe it was 38% before? Yet's see 2000 tax rates. Actually you could earn less than $300K then and pay 39.6%.
I think they did increase capital gains, but I'm not sure what they were in 2000. Nope they were pretty much the same. And since the capital gain rate was tied to your marginal rate, again the higher rate was applied to lower incomes than $400K.
Inflation has been pretty damn low, and many have lost a good chunk of their income, but I doubt that there has been an actual deflation of cost of living, so 2012 dollars aren't more than 2000.
Those reductions were suppose to have sunset provisions to end in 2010, but Congress and the President repeated them in a new law.
by crowsfoot - 3/1/13 8:23 PM
In Reply to: RE: He has no sense of even being partially responsible by JP Bill
This debt thing should not be. We've been on a path to pay it off, over and over again.
From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes
The debt is a constructed, artificial thing. A created crisis.
If you go strictly on "where we are now", that's amnisty. The guilt is deeper and other motivatd than that.
"let the Dems 'off that hook'
And Boeher blames only the Democrats, as you do.
I expect a politician to blame the opposition.
Now I'll give you after the Rep gave a bit on the tax issue last time, there should have been negiotated spending cuts, at least some, next. Then they could do the same again.
Although I was never one that thought it would have been better to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may back in 08 and 09, I'm beginning to wonder if they should have just let the temporary tax cuts expire for everyone. Maybe then they'd have dealt with this, but probably not.
Both damn sides are choosing to be inflexible demanding they get it all and hoping that we will blame it all on the other side. It's working for you anyway. They're the kid in the playground threatening to take his ball and go home unless everyone plays the way he says.
The Republicans were already reasonable
They gave BO his tax rate increases based on the sequester calling for ONLY cuts, but then BO moved the goal line again by now demanding MORE revenues when they weren't part of the original sequester agreement. Republicans aren't asking for anything more than what the Pres and the Dems originally agreed to.....isn't it time for those two sides of the triangle to do what they agreed to?
tax increase? revoke of a temporary tax cut
although I'll grant the original cut was for all and the lapse of the cut was only for the higher income group.
Yes, they should have agreed on some cuts after that, then started over again with a bit of this and a bit of that.
But I still don't think either side has done all they could have to avoided this.
(NT) PS, I've blamed all of them all the time
Since Congress have all gone home....
.....this would be an ideal time to change all the locks and ID card codes at the Capitol so none of them can get back in.
I also think it's time for a "Vote out the incumbents" movement that would apply to ALL of Congress, both houses and both parties. In the next election, vote against the incumbent no matter who they are, with the only allowable exceptions being if the only other candidate is someone like David Duke.
IMO, there needs to be more true independents
I doubt we'll see that in the near future as getting campaign money is tough without party backing. However many Reps and Dems there are, there should be enough independents to be able to prevent any bill from being a sure bet to pass or fail. I am sure there are some decent people on both sides who'd rather not be beholden but it would be suicide to say so.
(NT) good idea, but financial political suicide
actually we shouldn't be surprised at
the politicians in Washington being the way they are, it's probably a pretty good reflection of the way the rest of us (in total in way) act.
Not only will there always be wars and rumors of wars, there will always be striving to force others to acknowledge we know best and they should do as we say.
Look around the web, look around work, look around even small towns, and you're pretty much going to have a majority self associating themselves with two opposite camps. Any that want to try to take something from both are not to be trusted. I waiting for the parties to start excommunication of members that aren't "pure" enough in their politcal views. Looks like there is already some targeting a few prominent members lately.
as I've said before, change at the primary
then you can still be "conservative" or "liberal" in the general election.
However, my problem is there really isn't very many running that will even run on a moderate platform because they can't get party support. They can't get money from the PAC's, special interest group, and individuals that can afford to buy support for regulations and laws that will benefit them.