Obama Sequestration Request Calling For Short-Term Budget Fix To Delay Automatic Cuts
President Barack Obama is asking Congress for a short-term deficit reduction package of spending cuts and tax revenue that will delay the effective date of steeper automatic cuts now scheduled to kick in on March 1.
Well, who didn’t see that coming? The liar-in-chief, after taking credit for budget cuts which haven’t taken place yet, now wants them not to happen, even though he was the jackwagon who insisted on them in the first place. Instead, he wants congress to come up with a different plan which includes the entirely predictable call to raise taxes again.
Of course, we’ve barely started to gauge the affects of the tax increases he demanded at the first of the year.
The “fiscal cliff” trap Barry Zero set for the Repards worked perfectly. It’s been a horrible PR disaster. Repards better not fall for this crap again. You dumbasses agreed to it. Let it go through without comment. Every time you try to engage in this crap you lose, but worse, the American public loses more than the Repards.
I will provide free blog space for anyone who wishes to campaign against any Repard who openly advocates negotiating with Zero over this last proposal. Anyone. I don’t care if their openly communist. I don’t care if they’re warmists…. but then, I’m being redundant, but you get the point. Regardless, and a promise. I will provide free blog space for anyone running against any Repard who openly advocates negotiating with Zero over this.
Don’t you bastards even think about, you perennial screw-ups!
suyts space 
trying to make my head explode again……aren’t you?
Well, we knew it was going there as soon as they announced they were going to kick to March 1. We’ll kick it down further and each time Zero will argue for tax increases.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
My gut tells me you are going to be sorely disappointed. They will fall for it again.
The Tea Party has made Boehner look to the democrats for support. And there are still too many Republicrats so they will do whatever they want.
I am already working against Cantor. Unfortunately, we can only vote for one representative in each election.
They’ll reap what they sow.
I would say negotiate. Here is your starting point. I am not sure where the numbers come from but it is from one of our high ranking opposition politicians talking about Australia on Australia Day so my guess is that it is true.
“In the US, government transfer payments to those in the poorest 20 per cent are only 1.5 times as large as they are to those in the richest 20 per cent. In Australia the ratio is 12.4 times. We have a lot less “middle class welfare” than most OECD countries and the consequence is that inequality in net household incomes has increased only slightly over the past decade.”
You (your government) give almost as much welfare to the rich as the poor, this is ridiculous. The reason why this would be a good starting point is the Republicans claim they want to cut welfare and Obama claims he wants things more fair, in other words if both sides are honest this is good for both of them.
http://www.afr.com/p/national/my_australia_how_it_has_changed_l6LmfJ2veGyWc8e6syj5gI
The bad part about it from my perspective is that one of our politicians is almost saying we should be happy because others are much worse. I am happy but not too much and still think we have stupid middle class welfare.
Kelly, the false premise you build on is that ‘income inequality’ is a bad thing. It isn’t nor is it possible to eliminate it. Even in prison, there is ‘income inequality’. What welfare do the ‘rich’ get, by the way?
CD
I don’t know what welfare you get over there, you tell me of any government programs that are not means tested and that is them. As I said I do not know where the numbers come from. If the government is actually exacerbating income inequality it is bad. There are low income people in the US paying tax to support high income people as in Australia and this is bad. Governments tend to bail out companies with high wage earners.
The only “low income” Americans paying taxes period are those that can be claimed on other people’s tax return (read: dependent children). when 47% of the working population does not pay taxes, that means there are no poor paying for anyone.
Phil
So a single person earning say $20 000 per year will not pay any tax? In Australia that is about when tax kicks in assuming you are not getting rental assistance or something like that.
Depending upon deductions, they would not only not pay any income tax, they may even get some back (EITC).
Right Cd, it’s a play on words where people equate direct payments with tax deductions as if they’re somehow the same. I’m not saying Kelly is doing this, but many do.
I sometimes equate them as the same, deductions and direct payments. I would look at each individual example to see whether I consider it the same. I do have some incling this is what my politician looked at which would mean the figures are probably not so bad.
Talking about deductions Ronald Reagan apparently removed a lot of them that is another area that could be looked at, any really stupid deductions.
You can negotiate and in the end not agree should not close the door on the negotiating process though.
Another question from me why do you call him Zero and what does drink the Coolaid mean?
The term is “Kool Aid”. A powder drink in the US mostly for kids. It derives from the Guyana massacre instigated by Jim Jones – a cult figure that urged his followers to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid after they killed US representative Leo Ryan who had gone down there to investigate them.
Ergo, to drink “kool aid” or to be a “kool aid” drinker means to blindly follow a false cult figure (a lie).
kelly liddle says:
February 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm
“I sometimes equate them as the same, deductions and direct payments.”
If deductions are the same as direct payments then tax payments are the same as well, of course with the opposite sign.
(Now you have to come up with a reason why not. I eagerly await your contortions.)
You reminded me of Kelly’s view that all money is the government’s and people are then allowed to retain only that portion that suits the government. Hence the 1.5 figure. But that begs the question then – since no money belongs to individuals, how can there possibly be any rich people? There are not any according to his definition.
Kelly for the explanation for Koolaid, see Phil’s. I call him Zero as a play on references. Obama is sometimes affectionately referred to as simply the letter “O”. Whereas I spell out the number “0”.
:D“Kelly’s view that all money is the government’s and people are then allowed to retain only that portion that suits the government.”
Phil you might not like it but that is fact.Tomorrow the government could seize you property using marshal law. All of it. They could then maintain marshal law until your death and tax your estate at 99%. So the government is actually being really nice to you LOL. In the French tax system they actually have a wealth tax that is imposed on your net worth over a certain level so even if you did not make any money in a year and your net worth declined the government would still want you to pay them (that is a not so nice government).
No Kelly, they could not even then – that pesky Constitution which specifically addresses that very issue. I am sure in your country it is true, but it is not TODAY true for the US.
At any time, the US could be taken over by communists who throw out the constitution, but that does not mean today that the constitution is moot. So TODAY, you are simply wrong (You are probably right for Australia since you still have a Royal who can do as they please according to your constitution.).
Kelly, Germany had a wealth tax as well. It was ruled unconstitutional as the constitution requires the protection of private property.
Your ideas about what the government COULD do are irrelevant – you could just as well say that the Mafia owns all my money because they could shoot me tomorrow and rob everything they find. The question is whether the government has a right to do what it does.
In a country without a Bill Of Rights like Australia this concept seems foreign I guess.
I found a lot of Australian decisions very bizarre, arbitrary and violating the most fundamental rights. The expropriation of farmers by forcing them to let native vegetation grow on their land; the killing of property owners by stopping them from removing fire hazards.
I guess as a leftist urbanite you’d be ok for the moment, though. Until they violate your rights (of which you don’t even know because nobody has written them down for you).
These are natural rights. One could also talk about morality. But I know, foreign concepts to you.
And, Kelly, you’re missing the point. The starting point was the summer of 2011 for these particular negotiations. Each time, Zero has kicked the cuts down the road in exchanged for more debt or tax increases. The end result is that we’ve realized no constraint on govt spending, but have increased taxes and debt. And, now Obama is going to the well again. Will the Repards be dumb enough to fall for it again? I’m not sure, they’re pretty stupid.
Since you provided no link, I am curious as to how the rich are getting money from the government. I would love to know how that was calculated.
And for the record, I doubt it. I will have to see a source before I can actually debunk it, but I sincerely doubt it.
Phil
Are medicare and the old age pension means tested?
Old age pensions are not run by the government (SS is and it is means tested). Medicare is not means tested at this point. However both (SS and Medicare) are based upon actuarial tables and the amount you contributed over your working career. In other words, they are government run retirement plans. On paper, you get what you paid in. The government is merely playing banker.
IN reality, they have robbed both by creating SS Disability and medicaid (among other means of bankrupting the system).
So no, unless you destroy the concept of how and why they were created, they are not government handouts,. Both are earned. But as I told Ed, that does not mean the government cannot change the rules. They have and will.
And even with those programs, the percentages do not come close to what you quoted. SS and Medicare are both dwarfed by welfare now.
Medicare is means tested (and its strict price controls and the ability to retroactively deny payment of claims result in people having issues obtaining care despite ‘being covered’). The Medicare taxes no long have a ceiling in terms of being payroll taxes. Business owners, (self-employed) have always paid the full payroll taxes visibly. Medicare as such is not means tested, but then again, Medicare does not do anything other than set rules and pay its contractors that actually do pay suppliers and administer the rules (not a bad thing per se, as this leverages the claims payment systems created privately before Medicare was created).
Not only is Social Security means tested, it is subject to income taxes. If the recipient is one of the few who get the top monthly payments even if they don’t earn any other money and also subject to taxes at any monthly payment if the recipient earns enough other money (where that is also subject to income taxes).
Social Security Disability payments are a funny thing. Part of the payroll tax covers these. Part of the payments are truly welfare paid out of general taxes other than payroll taxes. To be eligible for normal SSDI, you have to have been gainfully employed 40 quarters and some of those quarters must have been within the last 60 months of your application. The system makes you wait a year before applying. Most initial applications are denied. Those that are not denied must be based upon adult onset blindness, multiple limb amputations, end stage renal disease (kidney failure that can’t be reversed), and some others that don’t come to mind at the moment. The waiting period result in a fraction of people dropping claims. The initial denial result in a fraction of people dropping claims, meritorious or not. A denied claim can be appealed. The waiting time is at least another year. This results in a fraction of claims being dropped. Those who soldier through to this point are mostly approved. SSDI at this point is subject to review in the future, typically within 60 months.
Those who get disablilty payments but are not eligible under the normal rules get SSI. This ‘supplement’ is truly welfare and those who get it get the minimum SS payment. They are now eligible (barring other exclusions such as being ex-cons) for all of the normal welfare programs. These folks are ‘poor’. Even folk who are on normal, post retirement Social Security sometimes didn’t pay in enough money to get the normal minimum monthly payment. These folk also get SSI (welfare) and typically also either get Medicare or Medicaid (state welfare supplemented by federal welfare) or both. They are also typically eligible for all of the other welfare programs. None of these folk are ‘rich’.