Pretty much, yeah. That plan lets Obama raise the debt ceiling on his own and would require a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress to forbid that from happening.
The Republicans know that they can't get a 2/3 majority in both houses, so this lets them all vote against it and look good for the next election while blaming Obama.
They're historically worse since St. Reagan (pbuh) anyway. Deficits shot up like crazy during his terms, and during both Bushes but especially the Lesser's.
Then you're probably a fucking moron. I don't trust the man completely either, but it's a better idea to do it his way than let the teabaggers fuck the country with their religious orthodoxy.
Of course we can sort it out by raising taxes. The solution is universal health care on the European model, so that/everyone/ pays in a bit more and everyone benefits. The other part of the solution is to quit being the world's policeman and to quit propping up foreign regimes like Israel. That's your cut.
A more pertinent part of history might be the Weimar Republic. One hopes that Congress doesn't remain so useless that enough people decide it's time for One Leader to unfuck us, because that'll fuck us harder.
Herp-a-derp. One person making an average income doing that will amount to throwing money down a black hole. I'm sure you're aware of that, and said that to try to score political points.
Do you even know what the amending process entails? Hint: you have to get a supermajority of the state legislatures to approve the amendment. Do you have any fucking idea how long that would take?/Years/. We don't have time for that kind of political theater bullshit. If Republicans want that, they should put it out as a separate measure. If the people and their representatives in the states want it, it'll pass on its own merits.
Oh, horseshit. Obama's a moderate Republican from back when such things existed.
I'd ask if you've noticed that he tries to govern from the center (or near-right, given how far over the GOP is just to spite him), but somehow I doubt you'd try.
It/was/ more-or-less self-sustaining, it's just that the Feds stole money from the trust fund to pay for other things. Because that was easier than raising taxes directly.
Hi, you seem to be using the FALSE EQUIVALENCE fallacy!
Let me bring you up to speed: two long and incompetently-waged wars kept of the budget books for political reasons, at the same time we had a tax cut. Nobody's ever cut taxes during a war, let alone two, because that's a really fucking stupid thing to do.
In the latest episode of the Washington Follies, the Republicans demanded big cuts in spending. Fine, say the Dems, here's $3 trillion in spending cuts But we want $1 trilliion in eliminated tax subsidies and raised taxes on the rich. NONONONONO, scream the Republicans, TAXES BAD TAXES BAD.
Yes. On the other hand, people seem to want things like Social Security and Medicare, so a rational decision would be to raise taxes to pay for those things people want, and to reduce spending on things people don't want, such as unfunded wars to build friendly nations.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes you wonder how much SS would save if the richer folks who don't need it are declared ineligible, but still pay in at the current level.
Especially not to people who are invested (heh) in believing that SS is a scam.
Your bias is showing.
Yeah, that's a neat hidden vulnerability to our system, isn't it? The Founders never thought that Congress could get so dysfunctional.
Maybe the Founders weren't the all-wise people that the really strict constructionists think they were.
Sorry, no. The Times is well-known for having a political bent.
Correlation != causation, and let's see those numbers if you've got them.
Pretty much, yeah. That plan lets Obama raise the debt ceiling on his own and would require a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress to forbid that from happening.
The Republicans know that they can't get a 2/3 majority in both houses, so this lets them all vote against it and look good for the next election while blaming Obama.
It's a fucking schoolyard tactic, so it is.
They're historically worse since St. Reagan (pbuh) anyway. Deficits shot up like crazy during his terms, and during both Bushes but especially the Lesser's.
Bull-fucking-shit. You've got no proof they did, either, or I'm sure you'd offer some for your assertions.
"Laffer curve" isn't enough.
Then you're probably a fucking moron. I don't trust the man completely either, but it's a better idea to do it his way than let the teabaggers fuck the country with their religious orthodoxy.
I suppose there /were/ provisions, but they amounted to "let's borrow it from the Chinese".
But we /can/ get that kind of population growth if we reform immigration.
Of course we can sort it out by raising taxes. The solution is universal health care on the European model, so that /everyone/ pays in a bit more and everyone benefits. The other part of the solution is to quit being the world's policeman and to quit propping up foreign regimes like Israel. That's your cut.
How about "More slogans NOW".
Your blogger come across as a politically-motivated person with an axe to grind. Get me a real link.
And so? Propose a separate goddamn balanced-budget amendment. Don't hold the country hostage to your political religion.
I think a BB amendment might be a good idea, subject to how it's implemented, but this is /not/ the way to go about it.
And there are solutions being suggested, but they'll never pass the Party of No.
Raising the maximum income for having to pay into SS, for example, or alternately raising the retirement age a bit.
A more pertinent part of history might be the Weimar Republic. One hopes that Congress doesn't remain so useless that enough people decide it's time for One Leader to unfuck us, because that'll fuck us harder.
Herp-a-derp. One person making an average income doing that will amount to throwing money down a black hole. I'm sure you're aware of that, and said that to try to score political points.
HA HA HA HA.
Do you even know what the amending process entails? Hint: you have to get a supermajority of the state legislatures to approve the amendment. Do you have any fucking idea how long that would take? /Years/. We don't have time for that kind of political theater bullshit. If Republicans want that, they should put it out as a separate measure. If the people and their representatives in the states want it, it'll pass on its own merits.
Oh, horseshit. Obama's a moderate Republican from back when such things existed.
I'd ask if you've noticed that he tries to govern from the center (or near-right, given how far over the GOP is just to spite him), but somehow I doubt you'd try.
An extra 5% of not much isn't much, but there's a lot of people paying their not much, and that's enough to keep social programs solvent.
It /was/ more-or-less self-sustaining, it's just that the Feds stole money from the trust fund to pay for other things. Because that was easier than raising taxes directly.
Hi, you seem to be using the FALSE EQUIVALENCE fallacy!
Let me bring you up to speed: two long and incompetently-waged wars kept of the budget books for political reasons, at the same time we had a tax cut. Nobody's ever cut taxes during a war, let alone two, because that's a really fucking stupid thing to do.
In the latest episode of the Washington Follies, the Republicans demanded big cuts in spending. Fine, say the Dems, here's $3 trillion in spending cuts But we want $1 trilliion in eliminated tax subsidies and raised taxes on the rich. NONONONONO, scream the Republicans, TAXES BAD TAXES BAD.
That's not "durr, they're equally bad".
Or, just maybe, we could not be extremists and try to rejigger the system to bring it back into balance.
Nah, destroy it all. What could possibly go wrong?
Yes. On the other hand, people seem to want things like Social Security and Medicare, so a rational decision would be to raise taxes to pay for those things people want, and to reduce spending on things people don't want, such as unfunded wars to build friendly nations.