All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who should give in?
12/8/2012 12:39 PM
And neither did the Dems.

The Repubs showed how fake Obama's plan was by trying to vote on it, and the Dem leadership called that move a joke.

Both sides presented a framework, and the Pubs made compromises and Obama doubled down by actually ADDING more spending!
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/8/2012 2:39 PM
The dems dont have anymore of a plan.

The pubs have compromised in principal.

The dems have not only not given in on anything...but now they actually want MORE spending.
12/8/2012 10:11 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 12/8/2012 11:19:00 AM (view original):
And Repubs are putting approx 0 specific ideas on the table, when asked all the do is hem and haw and look like fools.
They've submitted budgets.  Budgets with specifics in them.  When's the last time the democrats did that?  They are, after all, required to do so.

To say they haven't come up with specifics doesn't agree with the facts.

"Facts are stubborn things" - John Adams.

12/9/2012 12:58 PM
The president has submitted a budget every year as required by law.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/9/2012 2:47 PM
This article seems to describe ehat the pubs did.

And it is true that at congress and pub sites you cannot find details of the plan. Dont know why that is.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/05/nation/la-na-gop-budget-20121205
12/9/2012 2:54 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 12/9/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):
The president has submitted a budget every year as required by law.
Yes he has.

Too bad it has been repeatedly SO ridiculous that even senate Democrats can't approve it.

I guess that's close enough for some of you.

What about the claim that the Obama tax increases would only fund the gov't for a measly 8 days?

Is that just rhetoric?
12/10/2012 8:26 AM
My parents bring home roughly $100k together per year.  They're taxed near half a million.  Those are radically different.

It depends largely on where you live and cost of living there, but in many areas of the country a family income of $100K per year would be considered upper-middle class. I know there are a large number of families who would love to have that kind of income. Several families I know from various functions I attend regularly get by on 40K per year or less, even with two incomes and children.

As to taxes, some tax laws are odd and should probably be revised. No one should have to pay for taxes on some of the things businesses have to pay taxes on now.

On the other hand, the structure of a business can save you paying taxes twice (once on business income and a second time on personal income). For example, someone mentioned the S-Corporation, which is one way to eliminate the double tax. Then again, if you get greater benefits through the current structure in other ways, it might not help to structure it that way.
12/10/2012 12:01 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 12/9/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/9/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):
The president has submitted a budget every year as required by law.
Yes he has.

Too bad it has been repeatedly SO ridiculous that even senate Democrats can't approve it.

I guess that's close enough for some of you.

What about the claim that the Obama tax increases would only fund the gov't for a measly 8 days?

Is that just rhetoric?
A Senate budget resolution can't take effect without 60 votes in the Senate or cooperation from the House. 


12/10/2012 12:16 PM
Both sides should give in some.

Republicans need to realize taxing a few people a slightly higher percentage isn't going to hurt them much.

Obama needs to realize spending cuts need to happen somewhere in order to fix some of these issues.

12/10/2012 12:18 PM
What issues would be fixed by immediate spending cuts? Or tax increases?
12/10/2012 12:29 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/10/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
What issues would be fixed by immediate spending cuts? Or tax increases?

Becoming Greece.

12/10/2012 12:58 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/10/2012 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/10/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
What issues would be fixed by immediate spending cuts? Or tax increases?

Becoming Greece.

You do know why we will never become Greece, right?
12/10/2012 1:05 PM
Raising taxes on the wealthy would generate some income (obviously). It's not too significant of an increase that it would cause the negative side effects people too often fear with these increases. With marginal tax rates, most of the people who would pay more at all wouldn't pay much more. It's only the incredibly wealthy who would actually feel the increase in any substantial terms. Still, those are the people politicians sometimes defend the most (who do you think finances their campaigns?).

Spending cuts would save money, thereby making an effort toward reducing debt.

of 14
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who should give in?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.