Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...ay-chained-cpi

    This is a very accurate characterization of the state of things and how the GOP is unable to govern. I pity Boehner because he seems like a man that could negotiate a deal if he didn't have the Tea Party mucking things up. Oh well.

    Also to note: If it had gone through, cuts to Social Security would be very unpopular and the GOP dishonestly would have labeled them "the President's cuts" even though it was their demand. Exactly like the sequester that they demanded that even people right here on this very forum still think Obama is to blame for the sequester. The dishonesty is breathtaking.

    Last spring, President Obama signaled to congressional Republicans that he was serious about a long-term debt-reduction deal. GOP leaders made it explicitly clear: if the White House really wants a deal, Obama will have to accept a change to how Social Security benefits are calculated – a policy called “chained CPI,” in reference to the Consumer Price Index.

    To the severe disappointment of his progressive allies and Democratic base, the president agreed, including chained CPI in his budget as a demonstration of his commitment. “You’re serious about a deal?” Obama seemed to be saying. “I’m prepared to accept the Republicans’ top priority on entitlements – and I’m prepared to prove it by putting it my budget.”

    In theory, this was poised to be a breakthrough moment for a bipartisan debt-reduction agreement. But in practice, the president’s effort was for naught – most congressional Republicans said they simply couldn’t consider any comparable concession as part any negotiations, while other GOP lawmakers said they no longer liked the chained CPI policy their party insisted the White House accept.

    A year later, the president has decided there’s no point in offering Republicans what they want if they’re not prepared to take “yes” for an answer – Obama’s new budget plan drops chained CPI.

    The president’s budget request for fiscal 2015, which is due out March 4, will not call for a switch to a new formula that would limit cost-of-living increases in the entitlement program, the White House said Thursday.

    Obama last year proposed the new formula for calculating benefits as an overture to Republicans.

    The White House said that the offer to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) “remains on the table for whenever the Republicans decide they want to engage in a serious discussion,” but that the concession would not be included in the new budget request.

    The report from The Hill added that Obama has “yielded to pressure from congressional Democrats,” but that’s simply not what’s happened.

    The timeline of events is quite simple:

    1. Republicans said any debt-reduction deal would have to include chained CPI.

    2. Obama offered Republicans a debt-reduction deal that included chained CPI.

    3. Republicans said they still weren’t prepared to make a debt-reduction deal.


    Congressional Democrats pushed the president to give up, and Obama ultimately did, but if GOP lawmakers expressed even the slightest interest in reaching a compromise, the White House wouldn’t have been so eager to walk away from the policy.

    And then, there was this.

    A spokesman for Boehner slammed Obama for the about-face and said the president is “already throwing in the towel” on fiscal reforms.

    “This reaffirms what has become all too apparent: the president has no interest in doing anything, even modest, to address our looming debt crisis. The one and only idea the president has to offer is even more job-destroying tax hikes, and that non-starter won’t do anything to save the entitlement programs that are critical to so many Americans,” said Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck.

    This is among the more inexplicably, demonstrably wrong statements out of the Speaker’s office in a while. First, there is no looming debt crisis. Second, Obama has practically begged Boehner and his colleagues to work with him on a compromise, including a $4 trillion “grand bargain” Republicans turned down in 2011 and the president’s chained-CPI offer in 2013. (The president also accepted over a trillion dollars in spending cuts when the Speaker’s party held the debt ceiling hostage.)

    And third, “more job-destroying tax hikes” is an interesting phrase since taxes on the wealthy went up last year, over GOP objections, and last year was the best for U.S. job creation since 2006, and the second best since 1999.

  • #2
    Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

    So with your last sentence, you are basically saying this----->GW sucked, and Obama isn't any better, if not worse.

    OK, I am not going to disagree with you, is anyone else!

    It would be the same if you said--------->Reagan a great economy, and the Clinton administration did too. Yeah we agree there also, so what is your point?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

      Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
      So with your last sentence, you are basically saying this----->GW sucked, and Obama isn't any better, if not worse.

      OK, I am not going to disagree with you, is anyone else!

      It would be the same if you said--------->Reagan a great economy, and the Clinton administration did too. Yeah we agree there also, so what is your point?
      I don't understand how you got that at all. Demanding something like the sequester or chained CPI and then trying to blame it on the administration in charge in order to fool the American people (since your policy is unpopular and you can't propose it yourself) is dishonest. That's what I said.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

        Originally posted by Danny View Post
        I don't understand how you got that at all. Demanding something like the sequester or chained CPI and then trying to blame it on the administration in charge in order to fool the American people (since your policy is unpopular and you can't propose it yourself) is dishonest. That's what I said.
        Oh, I see-) So what you are saying is----------> you took 2 pages out of a budget of probably 1000, and you are claiming that because 1 page was to conservatives liking, they accept it....even if the other 999 weren't very good. Got ya, glad you cleared it up for me.

        Oh, by the way, read the last sentence of your original post. You were talking about job numbers from 2007, and 2013. And I agreed with you. Still, what is your point?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

          Originally posted by Danny View Post
          I don't understand how you got that at all. Demanding something like the sequester or chained CPI and then trying to blame it on the administration in charge in order to fool the American people (since your policy is unpopular and you can't propose it yourself) is dishonest. That's what I said.
          *Ahem*

          It's been well proven in this forum in a number of threads already that sequester was an Obama administration idea.
          Contributed to the negotiations by the Obama administration, and accepted by the Republicans.

          Any statements that try to blame shift the sequester to the Republicans is totally in error.

          So Danny, your statement is already 1/2 false. Also, it's generally the administration and the president that's trying to fool the American people, with their deceit and their lies.

          Does 'You can keep your plan period' and 'You can keep your doctor period' ring a bell with you? It wasn't Republicans that made these promises knowing they were false from the moment they were made.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

            EOHN, he is just cherry picking, I know it, and I am needling him, that's all.

            It is like me saying---------> I offered Danny a 1000 dollars a week, and he turned it down.....everybody is supposed to gasp and say how dumb he is.

            What I didn't say was------>I offered Danny 1000 dollars a week, if he cut of his left arm, his right leg, and his family jewels. A very convienient omission of all the facts, that Danny likes to pull off constantly.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

              Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
              EOHN, he is just cherry picking, I know it, and I am needling him, that's all.

              It is like me saying---------> I offered Danny a 1000 dollars a week, and he turned it down.....everybody is supposed to gasp and say how dumb he is.

              What I didn't say was------>I offered Danny 1000 dollars a week, if he cut of his left arm, his right leg, and his family jewels. A very convienient omission of all the facts, that Danny likes to pull off constantly.
              All in the effort of trying to keep BS from being propagated and eventually accepted as truth. I hear ya brother.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                Originally posted by Danny View Post
                http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...ay-chained-cpi/199/1

                This is a very accurate characterization of the state of things and how the GOP is unable to govern. I pity Boehner because he seems like a man that could negotiate a deal if he didn't have the Tea Party mucking things up. Oh well.

                Also to note: If it had gone through, cuts to Social Security would be very unpopular and the GOP dishonestly would have labeled them "the President's cuts" even though it was their demand. Exactly like the sequester that they demanded that even people right here on this very forum still think Obama is to blame for the sequester. The dishonesty is breathtaking.
                That article is so dishonest that it is hard to believe you would post it as serious discussion. First, Obama's proposal was defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate 99/1. His chained CPI proposal had no chance of ever making it through the Senate. The Republican budget that was sent to the Senate included Chained CPI but it was never brought to the floor of the Senate by Reid.

                The statement about him accepting a trillion dollars in spending cuts is patently false. There were no spending cuts, only increases less than the Democrats wanted.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                  Originally posted by Danny View Post
                  http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...ay-chained-cpi/199/1

                  This is a very accurate characterization of the state of things and how the GOP is unable to govern. I pity Boehner because he seems like a man that could negotiate a deal if he didn't have the Tea Party mucking things up. Oh well.

                  Also to note: If it had gone through, cuts to Social Security would be very unpopular and the GOP dishonestly would have labeled them "the President's cuts" even though it was their demand. Exactly like the sequester that they demanded that even people right here on this very forum still think Obama is to blame for the sequester. The dishonesty is breathtaking.
                  That article is so dishonest that it is hard to believe you would post it as serious discussion. First, Obama's proposal was defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate 99/1. His chained CPI proposal had no chance of ever making it through the Senate. The Republican budget that was sent to the Senate included Chained CPI but it was never brought to the floor of the Senate by Reid.

                  The statement about him accepting a trillion dollars in spending cuts is patently false. There were no spending cuts, only increases less than the Democrats wanted.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                    Guys, guys...

                    Danny was quoting Rachel Madcow, for crying out loud. She hasn't a Command of non-partisan facts for at least a decade.

                    i haven't the time or interest to fact check someone like Butch Maddow, and without some level of fact checking, Canny is simply trying to blow warm air up someone's skirt, like he always does...

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                      That article is so dishonest that it is hard to believe you would post it as serious discussion. First, Obama's proposal was defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate 99/1. His chained CPI proposal had no chance of ever making it through the Senate. The Republican budget that was sent to the Senate included Chained CPI but it was never brought to the floor of the Senate by Reid.

                      The statement about him accepting a trillion dollars in spending cuts is patently false. There were no spending cuts, only increases less than the Democrats wanted.
                      But if you only give them half the money they wanted to take at gunpoint then that's a cut!!!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                        Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
                        Oh, I see-) So what you are saying is----------> you took 2 pages out of a budget of probably 1000, and you are claiming that because 1 page was to conservatives liking, they accept it....even if the other 999 weren't very good. Got ya, glad you cleared it up for me.

                        Oh, by the way, read the last sentence of your original post. You were talking about job numbers from 2007, and 2013. And I agreed with you. Still, what is your point?
                        I'm genuinely confused at what your reading. All I see is this:

                        Exactly like the sequester that they demanded that even people right here on this very forum still think Obama is to blame for the sequester. The dishonesty is breathtaking.



                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                        *Ahem*

                        It's been well proven in this forum in a number of threads already that sequester was an Obama administration idea.
                        Contributed to the negotiations by the Obama administration, and accepted by the Republicans.

                        Any statements that try to blame shift the sequester to the Republicans is totally in error.

                        So Danny, your statement is already 1/2 false. Also, it's generally the administration and the president that's trying to fool the American people, with their deceit and their lies.
                        We've been over this so many times I can't keep track but each time you don't seem to understand. We seem to agree on what transpired but differ on the big picture. If the GOP demands something and the admin proposes something they'll accept (and then the GOP publicly state it was a victory), the blame still falls on the GOP because they demanded it. To characterize is otherwise is dishonest.



                        Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
                        EOHN, he is just cherry picking, I know it, and I am needling him, that's all.

                        It is like me saying---------> I offered Danny a 1000 dollars a week, and he turned it down.....everybody is supposed to gasp and say how dumb he is.

                        What I didn't say was------>I offered Danny 1000 dollars a week, if he cut of his left arm, his right leg, and his family jewels. A very convienient omission of all the facts, that Danny likes to pull off constantly.
                        The problem here is that the GOP can't even come to the table and propose anything other than 100% of what they want. Therefore chained CPI is out of the budget because the GOP isn't negotiating in good faith. What the dems are proposing - eliminating tax loopholes, corporate welfare to the oil companies and the farm industry..this isn't exactly akin to cutting off an arm. That you think it is, fundamentally diminishes your credibility in this argument. That extra revenue is very popular with the public.

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        The statement about him accepting a trillion dollars in spending cuts is patently false. There were no spending cuts, only increases less than the Democrats wanted.
                        A reduction in a projected increase is still a cut. Your fixation with the semantics is silly. Budgets will never likely go down, nor should they. The country's population and GDP grow every year.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                          Originally posted by Danny View Post
                          I'm genuinely confused at what your reading. All I see is this:








                          We've been over this so many times I can't keep track but each time you don't seem to understand. We seem to agree on what transpired but differ on the big picture. If the GOP demands something and the admin proposes something they'll accept (and then the GOP publicly state it was a victory), the blame still falls on the GOP because they demanded it. To characterize is otherwise is dishonest.





                          The problem here is that the GOP can't even come to the table and propose anything other than 100% of what they want. Therefore chained CPI is out of the budget because the GOP isn't negotiating in good faith. What the dems are proposing - eliminating tax loopholes, corporate welfare to the oil companies and the farm industry..this isn't exactly akin to cutting off an arm. That you think it is, fundamentally diminishes your credibility in this argument. That extra revenue is very popular with the public.


                          A reduction in a projected increase is still a cut. Your fixation with the semantics is silly. Budgets will never likely go down, nor should they. The country's population and GDP grow every year.
                          And so does our national debt despite the fact that the government is taking in more money than it ever has. A reduction in a projected increase is not a cut. Government expenditures need to decrease to the level of income. That's why it's called a budget.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                            Originally posted by Danny View Post
                            I'm genuinely confused at what your reading. All I see is this:








                            We've been over this so many times I can't keep track but each time you don't seem to understand. We seem to agree on what transpired but differ on the big picture. If the GOP demands something and the admin proposes something they'll accept (and then the GOP publicly state it was a victory), the blame still falls on the GOP because they demanded it. To characterize is otherwise is dishonest.





                            The problem here is that the GOP can't even come to the table and propose anything other than 100% of what they want. Therefore chained CPI is out of the budget because the GOP isn't negotiating in good faith. What the dems are proposing - eliminating tax loopholes, corporate welfare to the oil companies and the farm industry..this isn't exactly akin to cutting off an arm. That you think it is, fundamentally diminishes your credibility in this argument. That extra revenue is very popular with the public.


                            A reduction in a projected increase is still a cut. Your fixation with the semantics is silly. Budgets will never likely go down, nor should they. The country's population and GDP grow every year.
                            And so does our national debt despite the fact that the government is taking in more money than it ever has. A reduction in a projected increase is not a cut. Government expenditures need to decrease to the level of income. That's why it's called a budget.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Obama Drops Chained CPI as GOP Refuses to Take Yes for an Answer

                              Originally posted by Danny View Post
                              I'm genuinely confused at what your reading. All I see is this:








                              We've been over this so many times I can't keep track but each time you don't seem to understand. We seem to agree on what transpired but differ on the big picture. If the GOP demands something and the admin proposes something they'll accept (and then the GOP publicly state it was a victory), the blame still falls on the GOP because they demanded it. To characterize is otherwise is dishonest.





                              The problem here is that the GOP can't even come to the table and propose anything other than 100% of what they want. Therefore chained CPI is out of the budget because the GOP isn't negotiating in good faith. What the dems are proposing - eliminating tax loopholes, corporate welfare to the oil companies and the farm industry..this isn't exactly akin to cutting off an arm. That you think it is, fundamentally diminishes your credibility in this argument. That extra revenue is very popular with the public.

                              A reduction in a projected increase is still a cut. Your fixation with the semantics is silly. Budgets will never likely go down, nor should they. The country's population and GDP grow every year.
                              Prove that the Republicans demanded the sequester. Because I don't recall them demanding that. From what I recall, this was an administration initiated idea, introduced to the negotiations by the administration, and accepted by the Republicans. From what I recall, the administration made the terms 'so draconian that no one would be able to accept them, and do everything to avoid them', or something similar (paraphrasing from memory).

                              Still amazed that a decrease in an anticipated spending increase is it little more than a disappointment, and that some would call that a spending cut, it's not. It's a spending increase reduction. It's that attitude and opinion why DC has a SPENDING PROBLEM, not a revenue problem.

                              Further, when the sequester was in fact imposed, by mutual agreement, it was the administration that tried to make it as needlessly imposing and difficult as possible on ordinary Americans caught in the crossfire. I mean who ever heard of blocking off and closing an open air monument and scenic road side turn outs? - That's awfully petty of the administration. Showing their true colors.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X