No Alternative Minimum Tax patch could mean higher taxes for most

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

You just remember one thing. If you've been paying into something your whole life, it is NOT an entitlement. I'm sick of republicans tossing around that word.

No, the term is correct. They are entitled to get something out of the system because they paid into it.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

You just remember one thing. If you've been paying into something your whole life, it is NOT an entitlement. I'm sick of republicans tossing around that word.

Agreed. I've been paying into SS since I was 16. I damn well better get to reap some of that benefit if need be.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

You just remember one thing. If you've been paying into something your whole life, it is NOT an entitlement. I'm sick of republicans tossing around that word.

Call it what you want...we still don't have enough money to pay for it and all of the tax increases in the world isn't going to change that.

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Call it what you want...we still don't have enough money to pay for it and all of the tax increases in the world isn't going to change that.

Well perhaps the GOP should have thought of that before tossing all our money into the paper shredder known as Iraq. So just because Republicans are intellectually inferior does that mean the people shouldn't collect the money the government OWES to them? Social security, Medicare, and other "entitlements" as you like to call them barely put a dent in the budget. 8 years of republican rule in this country is what threw us over the fiscal cliff, and now they expect Obama to magically fix it by cutting social programs? HELL NO.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Call it what you want...we still don't have enough money to pay for it and all of the tax increases in the world isn't going to change that.

Of course we can pay for it. How silly. But once again, since it doesn't fit your ideology, you want to get rid of it.

http://www.epi.org/publication/socia...s_sustainable/

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Of course we can pay for it. How silly. But once again, since it doesn't fit your ideology, you want to get rid of it.

http://www.epi.org/publication/socia...s_sustainable/

Or.....

http://www.brookings.edu/research/te...-budget-rivlin

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/po...position=&_r=0

This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with helping folks over the long haul. At out current rate of burn there won't be anything there for either of us.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Keep telling yourself that. This notion that Democrats are somehow the white knight in all of these talks is just ridiculous.

The Republicans are dragging their feet, The Democrats are dragging their feet, and the President can't seem to do anything to bridge the gap.

This is a total and complete team failure at this point.

Can you take a second to actually read what I wrote?

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said the Dems are the good guys, as far as I'm concerned both parties are just different degrees in how hard they are going to **** the poor.

I will say however, from several of the books I've read recently (such as Woodwords Price of Politics), you get verbatim discussions and proposals (all documented) that paint a pretty clear picture of who is really holding everything up (remember that we've been playing this tune for a year and a half now). Frankly I don't like any of the reforms that are happening because again they are round about ways of ****ing the poor while giving even more control to the top. With that said, as far as passing the turd sandwich goes the GOP is actively adding to the ****pile.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

Or.....

http://www.brookings.edu/research/te...-budget-rivlin

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/po...position=&_r=0

This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with helping folks over the long haul. At out current rate of burn there won't be anything there for either of us.

Ah yes- the glass is half empty isn't it?

Look, we can start doing something about this, or the GOP can keep blocking everything and nothing gets done.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

http://www.brookings.edu/research/te...-budget-rivlin

From your link [bolding mine] ...

Social Security

Finally, we must address Social Security and do it soon. Social Security, while separately funded by payroll taxes, is not in sound fiscal shape for the long run. Since putting Social Security back on a firm foundation will make only a modest contribution to reducing long run deficits, deficit reduction is not the central motivation for fixing Social Security. The right reason for saving Social Security is to reassure all Americans that this hugely successful program is solidly funded and will be there for the millions who depend on it when they need it. The main reason for acting now rather than later is simply that the sooner we act the less drastic adjustments we have to make. These adjustments can involve revenue increases, future benefit reductions (with or without retirement age changes), or some of each. They need not be large if they are done quickly and they need not have a significant effect on those currently retired or close to retirement.

As Alice M. Rivlin points out, Social Security does not even need to be a part of the deficit debate. It may need adjusting (what long range plane doesn't) but it unnecessarily confuses the issue to conflate it with the federal budget deficit.

This is something our politicians and the American people need to get into their heads: Social Security does not have anything to do with the federal budget deficit. It should be treated as a totally separate issue.

[thewitt]

You guys need to read the Democrat offered spending cuts more closely if you really think they are offering any cuts. These are 10 year deals, which are completely false in their makeup and intent.

There is no such thing as a 10 year deal in Washington.

The Republicans know this and are simply demanding first year cuts, not promises for future Presidents and Congresses to deal with.

You guys are being duped, again, into believing that your party is serious about fixing this problem. This is simply the politics of division, continuing, in order to elect more Democrats into the House next election. It's all about power in Washington DC, and how to get elected in the next cycle, this is why we need to get rid of career politicians.

Go back to unpaid service and quit making Washington the premier retirement job in the country.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by thewitt

The Republicans know this and are simply demanding first year cuts, not promises for future Presidents and Congresses to deal with.

If that were the case surely "Plan B" would have passed...

Originally Posted by thewitt

Go back to unpaid service and quit making Washington the premier retirement job in the country.

Unpaid service is essentially the current situation.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by thewitt

The Republicans know this and are simply demanding first year cuts, not promises for future Presidents and Congresses to deal with.

So, are you saying instead of cutting $500b from something over 10 years, they should just cut $500b now, instead? What are you saying?

You guys are being duped, again, into believing that your party is serious about fixing this problem.

And you think anyone who refuses to touch the defense budget is serious? Come on...

Go back to unpaid service and quit making Washington the premier retirement job in the country.

Literally, the only thing you have ever said that I agree with.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by samiwas

So, are you saying instead of cutting $500b from something over 10 years, they should just cut $500b now, instead? What are you saying?

He's saying they are moving to have cuts in effect starting year one instead of backloading them on the deal. It's like when someone in the NFL signs a big overall dollar contract where 2/3 of it is weighted on the back end of the deal. The overall number looks nice, but everyone knows the player, in most cases, will never see a penny of the later year money.