Posted on 12/09/2012 1:17:09 PM PST by Orange1998
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told me Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" that he is willing to accept tax rate increases as a component of a fiscal cliff deal, as long as Democrats put "significant entitlement reform" on the table.
"What we ought to be working on is the other 93 percent, because even if you do what [Obama] wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7 percent of the deficit," Coburn said. "What we have done is spend ourselves into a hole, and we're not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it."
"And so will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," he said.
But his Republican colleague in the House, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), disagreed.
He said that Republicans shouldn't vote for a tax increase which they believe will harm the economy.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," Hensarling said. "I mean, what that is going to do, according to the National Federation of Independent Business that commissioned a study by Ernst & Young, is cost 700,000 Americans to go from having paychecks to unemployment checks."
Hensarling said that President Obama pulled a "bait and switch" on Congressional Republicans by adding a demand for tax rate increases after the election. In 2011 Obama had suggested that $1.2 trillion could be raised by closing loopholes and pursuing tax reform alone, without raising rates.
"The president, again … if he would do what he said before the election, as opposed to the bait-and-switch, what Republicans feel like is a little bit like Charlie Brown running to kick the football and Lucy pulls it away," Hensarling said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“I have fought that idea for years. I’m done fighting it. Let’s roll.”
It’s way past time I say because we have to start defending ourselves from both parties and their lunacy.
“Again, I’m going to ask you where are you going to get enough new people in sufficient numbers to win an election?”
Steal them from the republican party and end the party of no spine! Put up the candidates that we want not that they choose. Easy to figure out how to do it. It will work. Be the party of conservatism.
“So your kids will suffer...so will mine. I don’t see that you answered my question about what government bloated departments could be shut down to save our children.”
I earlier gave an answer that would clean up entitlements and solve this stupid problem once and for all. But for your question, I’d start with Ag, then Education, then Housing, and plenty of others - that would all help a bit, but entitlements will catch up and we’ll be in this mess again in a decade.
“I think you are just p.o.’d about paying taxes in general. It really doesn’t have anything to do with your kids.”
I have more money, after taxes, than I know what to do with. It’s been that way for decades with me, simply because I always lived one step down from my income and didn’t borrow money (you’d be surprised, a lot of people do the same). So if my taxes went up a bit, life would actually get a bit easier, as I wouldn’t have to find places for my extra money.
But for all that, people like you are out to royally screw my kids - that’s what p.o.’s me. They had NOTHING to do with this debt.
“If a private insurer or retirement administrator absconded with funds they would be required to insure those funds..or go to prison ala Bernie Madoff.”
I noticed that I still haven’t been required to pay off Madoff’s investors...
But you’re going to end up with the exact same people you started with. Human nature is human nature and you can’t change it.
I’m sure I did, but I definitely wanted to correct the verbiage utilized. We’ve all been TAXED, nothing more. They have as much power to make you save for retirement as they do for healthcare. Apologize if I beat the horse.
Means testing = raising eligibility age = screwing the taxpayer. Either the law means what it says, or it’s worthless. Just because I make well later in life doesn’t mean I EXPECTED to do the same, where it gets stripped away w/out complaint.
IMHO, that is why we’re in the shape we’re in; people trusted the gov’t. A gov’t that can do/say as it wishes w/out repercussions; which, I’d argue again, is Unconstitutional (if We The People could not give them that power, they never had it to begin with). Fix that last tidbit, put some away for a REAL LONG time and rip away their ill gotten gains (they didn’t get in rich, most of ‘em) and the rest will solve itself.
It was bad enough with the GOP NOT talking up the 2% ‘holiday’ was making things worse. Not that I expected anything out of the gutless wonders in D.C....
Apparently you didn't understand my point, the crux of which is that many people are on the receiving end of "entitlements" who SHOULD be cut off, particularly scammers, deadbeats and illegals, whose "benefits" are forcibly extorted from honest taxpaying Americans.
Cutting off this legion of grifters would be an effective step toward entitlement reform. People didn't pay into social security with the expectation that it would be used for welfare to the world.
Like I said, EVERYONE will get a free ride, including you. My point is that taxes need to be high enough to pay for all you guys. Since you guys, older conservatives, are not willing to part with one penny of what you think is owed to you (even if it was spent twice over), the ONLY question left is who pays for you guys - me, or my kids (and later grand kids)...I would like it NOT to be my kids and later generations. That is the ONLY thing left to argue over.
Wrong. Apparently you didn't understand my post. I am not an "older conservative". I have kids AND elderly parents (hence my reference to the "sandwich generation"). I didn't see anyone advocating for a "free ride" among the posters here; only you accusing others of thinking they deserve one. Your posts convey a hostile attitude toward older Americans which perfectly mirrors the divide-and-conquer, Alinskyite tactics employed by progressives to turn innocent bystanders against each other rather than toward the real villains, i.e. the corrupt politicians who have bankrupted the system and the grifters who helped them do it.
You’re a pinhead who thinks I have the right to tell my mother she can’t use her SS. You’re a half wit that thinks he could pay $6k a month for a nursing home on $25 p hr. (That would be 52 hours per week 52 weeks a year with no taxes taken out and not a cent left over.) You’re a shithead who would rather put his own mother in a home instead of taking care of her yourself. You’re a window-licking retard who can’t think of a comeback of your own and can’t comprehend simple English. You may be the dumbest person who has ever posted to me and that’s saying a lot. Go change your bib and empty your drool cup, you have more copy & paste to do.
If ad-hominem is the argument of the incapable, you're proving quite incapable!
who thinks I have the right to tell my mother she can’t use her SS.
Review the Supreme Court decision Flemming v. Nestor, where they established that Social Security is a welfare program, and the taxes collected convey no property rights respecting payment. It is not 'her SS', it is welfare. SSA actually has a succinct synopsis on their website.
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits.
Coincidentally, he was denied benefits for belonging to that political party that believes: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
thinks he could pay $6k a month for a nursing home on $25 p hr. (That would be 52 hours per week 52 weeks a year with no taxes taken out and not a cent left over.)
Your straw is showing, man. I mentioned I make $25/hr for 40hrs (that's the job with tax free health benefits and guaranteed hours), I work a further 10-20 a week privately for $125/hr. Sometimes that work is taxed, sometimes it is trade. Being on someone else's payroll isn't the only way to make a living in these United States. My wife charges $60-85 per hour, and works as much as 60 hours a week herself. We live within our means, as my parents and grandparents taught me, and save each month for the uncertain future and to not be a burden on our own children.
would rather put his own mother in a home instead of taking care of her yourself.
Oh, look, another straw man! Is this your specialty? Your incorrect assumptions about how my family takes care of their own fails to distract from the point you feel your family is entitled to welfare.
can’t think of a comeback of your own and can’t comprehend simple English.
Familiar with the phrase, hoist with one's own petard? The comprehension comment is amusing in light of your own failure to comprehend both the income sources I noted for myself earlier in the thread when you tried to calculate what I could (or could not) afford. I guess math isn't the only point you're not strong on.
I'll ask again, do you believe in liberty (with the rewards and risks that entails), or 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?
Since you took it to that level making your every post nothing more than an adolescent ad-hominem I have no choice but to speak on the only level you can understand.
Review the Supreme Court decision Flemming v. Nestor, where they established that Social Security is a welfare program, and the taxes collected convey no property rights respecting payment. It is not 'her SS', it is welfare. SSA actually has a succinct synopsis on their website.
Completely ignoring that I have no moral right and no legal standing to tell my mother she can't collect it. You're dumber than the 0bama Phone lady.
I mentioned I make $25/hr for 40hrs (that's the job with tax free health benefits and guaranteed hours), I work a further 10-20 a week privately for $125/hr. Sometimes that work is taxed, sometimes it is trade. Being on someone else's payroll isn't the only way to make a living in these United States. My wife charges $60-85 per hour, and works as much as 60 hours a week herself. We live within our means, as my parents and grandparents taught me, and save each month for the uncertain future and to not be a burden on our own children.
Apart from the fact that you're actually stupid enough to think I can read minds and know what you haven't posted it it totally meaningless since I don't happen to be you AND your wife. Calling you a moron is an insult to morons.
You're a nothing, pal. A waste of O2. A blathering arrogant POS.
“Apparently you didn’t understand my point, the crux of which is that many people are on the receiving end of “entitlements” who SHOULD be cut off, particularly scammers, deadbeats and illegals, whose “benefits” are forcibly extorted from honest taxpaying Americans.”
And so you’ve defined the problem. You won’t budge on your goodies, rather THEY should only budge on their goodies. To me you guys are no different, you’re both STEALING from my kids - because the pot is empty, and then some (and then a lot). So, like I keep saying, don’t worry, you will GET YOUR MONEY - there may well be no country left for my kids, but there may be no country left to speak of...but what the heck...who cares?
“People didn’t pay into social security with the expectation that it would be used for welfare to the world.”
The US Budget and its projections was NOT kept under Top Secret control - EVERYBODY knew the money was being spent as fast as it came in. And for those 3 people that (claim) to have not known it, that still doesn’t mean the DEBT should be shoved on to my kids.
“Alinskyite tactics employed by progressives to turn innocent bystanders against each other rather than toward the real villains, i.e. the corrupt politicians who have bankrupted the system and the grifters who helped them do it.”
I could care less about Alinsky. If you hadn’t drank the Koolaid and (apparently?) believed that there was some pot of gold waiting for you, you wouldn’t be taking the position you’re taking...you’d realize that THERE IS NO MONEY and maybe be willing to sacrifice, like myself, in the form of higher taxes - to keep some debt off of your kids too.
But spending cuts...HA!!! That will NEVER happen, since we conservatives DEMAND our goodies from government just as much as the libs.
Of course you have a moral right to tell her she isn't entitled to other people's money. I sure you don't have to look far to find examples of things that are legal, but not moral.
Apart from the fact that you're actually stupid enough to think I can read minds and know what you haven't posted
I posted about my income sources, you just missed one of them (amusing in light of you attacking me for reading comprehension) in your efforts to calculate my annual income and what I can or cannot afford.
Of course, what I can afford is irrelevant to the question at hand, the one you keep dodging:
I'll ask again, do you believe in liberty (with the rewards and risks that entails), or 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?
You're a moocher, pal. A parasite on the working. A blathering arrogant POS who feels entitled to the fruits of other's labor. A mugger at least risks his own neck to accomplish what you do.
It's kind of sad how you berate the people who have their paychecks unwillingly harvested for your benefit. I suppose a mugger isn't grateful either, but the law in Florida would protect me after I shot him for trying to get away with the same thing.
My only regret now is the her check isn’t taken entirely from your account. ROTFLOL
That's the difference between us. I don't have your shamelessness. I would regret depriving another and their family of their earnings. I recognize that the earnings of another represent a portion of their life they have traded, and that I have no rightful claim on their life. I would regret not being able to support my family, and relying on the government to rob my neighbors so that I could spend my time on the web instead of being productive and trading those efforts to others for the things I want in life.
Did your mother raise you without morals, or did those fall by the wayside later when you found out what your efforts were actually worth to others in free exchange couldn't afford you the life you think you should have?
I think you and I agree about the basic level of the corruption involved with our government.
Yes, SS/Medicare are taxes. But they were dedicated for certain purposes. Unlike Fed W/H which goes for no specific purpose. Of course, SS/Medicare were dumped into those funds from the beginning.
The mistrust should have started a long, long time ago imho.
Sorry you missed my point.
Madoff’s investors participated by choice. He is in prison.
The government forces participation...with no consequences for mismanagement.
We actually agree about one thing..over bloated government.
As I have already said, SS, Medicare and now Obamacare should never have been instituted, they are unconstitutional. But they were passed into law. I assume you vote and know that these were passed into law over our approval. Well, truth be known, I wasn’t around in the 1940’s and not able to vote in the early 1960’s. But I saw how OCare went down and assume it wasn’t much different.
I could well be surprised, but I don’t see a lot of difference coming in SS/Med or Ocare. Don’t blame me or “others like me” for “robbing your kids” (are you the only one in this country with kids?). If you have voted in your life you bear responsibility just like everyone else. If you didn’t vote, your responsibility is greater. But in reality..it made no difference, did it? I don’t think the Pubs have the intestinal fortitude or Senate votes to change things. The Dems will NOT dismantle their premier programs. So your kids and everyone else will pay, just like we have. Until things crash..and they will. Your anger is sorely misplaced..place your anger at the government.
I must congratulate you on your financial savvy. Trying to find enough banks to put your money in is a blessing. But, if you have that problem, there is no real reason that you can’t send the excess to the IRS. Even if the tax laws aren’t changed..they won’t refuse it if it will help you out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.