Jump to content


Obama’s “balanced approach”


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:57 AM

$1.6T in tax increases over 10 years.
$50 billion in NEW stimulus spending
An end to congressional control over borrowing limits.
He will agree to a GOAL of $400 billion in cuts to social programs to be worked out later.

The man is not serious.

http://www.nytimes.c...ch-impasse.html


#2 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:09 PM

Wait and see what Boehner's counter offer is.

#3 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:14 PM

Where's his plan?
Where's his plan?
Where's his plan?

OMFG, look at his plan! He doesn't adopt our position! Outrage!
OMFG, look at his plan! He doesn't adopt our position! Outrage!
OMFG, look at his plan! He doesn't adopt our position! Outrage!

Boilerplate outrage exercise #3.

Meanwhile, cut away the pap and the article gets to the point eventually:

The president’s proposal does stick to the broad framework of the deal Mr. Boehner wants: an upfront deficit-reduction “down payment” that would serve to cancel the automatic tax increases and spending cuts while still signaling seriousness on the deficit, followed by a second stage in which Congress would work next year on overhauling the tax code and social programs to secure more deficit reduction.
But the details show how far the president is ready to push House Republicans. The upfront tax increases in the proposal go beyond what Senate Democrats were able to pass earlier this year. Tax rates would go up for higher-income earners, as in the Senate bill, but Mr. Obama wants their dividends to be taxed as ordinary income, something the Senate did not approve. He also wants the estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million, a step several Democratic senators balked at. The Senate bill made no changes to the estate tax, which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent. On Jan. 1, the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million.



#4 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:47 PM

Where's his plan?
Where's his plan?
Where's his plan?

OMFG, look at his plan! He doesn't adopt our position! Outrage!
OMFG, look at his plan! He doesn't adopt our position! Outrage!
OMFG, look at his plan! He doesn't adopt our position! Outrage!

Boilerplate outrage exercise #3.

Meanwhile, cut away the pap and the article gets to the point eventually:

The president’s proposal does stick to the broad framework of the deal Mr. Boehner wants: an upfront deficit-reduction “down payment” that would serve to cancel the automatic tax increases and spending cuts while still signaling seriousness on the deficit, followed by a second stage in which Congress would work next year on overhauling the tax code and social programs to secure more deficit reduction.
But the details show how far the president is ready to push House Republicans. The upfront tax increases in the proposal go beyond what Senate Democrats were able to pass earlier this year. Tax rates would go up for higher-income earners, as in the Senate bill, but Mr. Obama wants their dividends to be taxed as ordinary income, something the Senate did not approve. He also wants the estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million, a step several Democratic senators balked at. The Senate bill made no changes to the estate tax, which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent. On Jan. 1, the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million.

First we get two budget proposals that were so unserious that not a single member of congress could vote for either of them and now this. A proposal which increases spending and reduces oversight with a GOAL to make cuts later.
No one who favors fiscal responsibility can support this shit.

#5 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,879 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

See that was the problem with the GOP agreeing to increases in taxes. It's like trying to let a little air out of a party balloon with a pin. It blows up and it all escapes.

The worst thing in that is the demand that congress give up control of the national debt limits.

I can see where the emotional outrage is coming from even if it wasn't expressed very coherently.

Clearly, the man wants to be the dictator that Washington warned us about.

#6 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:55 PM

First we get two budget proposals that were so unserious that not a single member of congress could vote for either of them and now this. A proposal which increases spending and reduces oversight with a GOAL to make cuts later.
No one who favors fiscal responsibility can support this shit.


Elections have consequences, and the Republicans have much to lose if they choose to continue down the intransigence path they've been sticking to over the last four years. Obama has stated that he's open to good faith negotiations, and, obviously, this is the public facing side of the work going on with House and Senate leadership.

I favor fiscal responsibility, and I absolutely support 'this shit'. This is hardball, baby.

The Republican's "my way or highway" modus operandi is kaput, whether they choose to realize it or not ... they do that and the alternative is sequestration and big tax hikes, i.e., they lose.

#7 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:58 PM

Clearly, the man wants to be the dictator that Washington warned us about.


Uh huh. You guys criticize him for being weak when he tries to get the Republicans to negotiate in good faith, and then call him a dictator when he takes a much more assertive stance from a favorable position. Suffah. The Republicans have put themselves in the pickle they're now faced with. Elections have consequences. Deal.

#8 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:00 PM


First we get two budget proposals that were so unserious that not a single member of congress could vote for either of them and now this. A proposal which increases spending and reduces oversight with a GOAL to make cuts later.
No one who favors fiscal responsibility can support this shit.


Elections have consequences, and the Republicans have much to lose if they choose to continue down the intransigence path they've been sticking to over the last four years. Obama has stated that he's open to good faith negotiations, and, obviously, this is the public facing side of the work going on with House and Senate leadership.

I favor fiscal responsibility, and I absolutely support 'this shit'. This is hardball, baby.

The Republican's "my way or highway" modus operandi is kaput, whether they choose to realize it or not ... they do that and the alternative is sequestration and big tax hikes, i.e., they lose.

Yep...Elections have consequences...we get what we deserve.

#9 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:13 PM

The guy who stood for fiscal responsibility didn't win many electoral votes.

Cue the Outrage Exercise #4, they've tired of #3.

#10 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:24 PM

So dog wanted a balanced proposal to start negotiations from. They should have just proposed the Romney plan and started from there. Then settle for more tax cuts to millionaires and privatizing social security.

#11 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

I find it outrageous that he didn't adopt the GOP plan from the beginning, the way Pelosi and the DemocRATS did with Insurance Industry Relief.

#12 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,879 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:28 PM


Clearly, the man wants to be the dictator that Washington warned us about.


Uh huh. You guys criticize him for being weak when he tries to get the Republicans to negotiate in good faith, and then call him a dictator when he takes a much more assertive stance from a favorable position. Suffah. The Republicans have put themselves in the pickle they're now faced with. Elections have consequences. Deal.


Doesn't a willingness to discuss tax increases indicate negotiation in good faith?

Doesn't taking that ball and running it into a trillion in tax increases, eliminating congressional control of debt and near zero spending reduction make the case that his maner is dictatorial?

It's pretty much a fiscal Morsi move.

#13 cmilliken

cmilliken

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:29 PM

The guy who stood for fiscal responsibility didn't win many electoral votes.


Truth. Socialist proposes socialist agenda, film at 11.

#14 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,459 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

US vs THEM we win - they lose... You guys are fucking pathetic. Both side of this argument seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the winner won by a very narrow margin, and that no matter which "side" you're on, that there is a very large percentage of the population that is in fervent disagreement.

Go ahead and "win" - see where it gets US.

#15 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

This is a negotiation, folks, a process, which, if successful, inevitably ends in compromise. Watch the process, not the content, at this point. The end product may have very little to do with the opening positions and while the sides are still talking there is hope of success. Of course, if you're against negotiation, there are other means of settling disagreements.

#16 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:53 PM


The guy who stood for fiscal responsibility didn't win many electoral votes.


Truth. Socialist proposes socialist agenda, film at 11.

How did the Socialist do in the electoral vote? What was his/her agenda?

#17 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,286 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:01 PM

We need a leader.

#18 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,162 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:25 PM

See that was the problem with the GOP agreeing to increases in taxes. It's like trying to let a little air out of a party balloon with a pin. It blows up and it all escapes.

The worst thing in that is the demand that congress give up control of the national debt limits.

I can see where the emotional outrage is coming from even if it wasn't expressed very coherently.

Clearly, the man wants to be the dictator that Washington warned us about.

Yep

Obama is still and always will be in campaign mode. Hitting the trail in Philly today, Fuck em go over the cliff for all I care. Even the senate is balking at some of his "proposals" The guy wins elections , but doesn't give a shit about governing, Interesting tidbit the Brits spend about 57 million a year keeping the Royals in style. We spent 1.4 billion on the Obama family last year, See a problem? Now extend it out across the board.

Any proposal from either side that increases spending while raising taxes and with no spending cuts is not a plan, it is a suicide pact.

http://shepherdspieh...ir-royals-.html

#19 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,162 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:30 PM



See that was the problem with the GOP agreeing to increases in taxes. It's like trying to let a little air out of a party balloon with a pin. It blows up and it all escapes.

The worst thing in that is the demand that congress give up control of the national debt limits.

I can see where the emotional outrage is coming from even if it wasn't expressed very coherently.

Clearly, the man wants to be the dictator that Washington warned us about.

Yep

Obama is still and always will be in campaign mode. Hitting the trail in Philly today, Fuck em go over the cliff for all I care. Even the senate is balking at some of his "proposals" The guy wins elections , but doesn't give a shit about governing, Interesting tidbit the Brits spend about 55 million a year keeping the Royals in style. We spent 1.2 billion on the Obama family last year, See a problem? Now extend it out across the board.

Any proposal from either side that increases spending while raising taxes and with no spending cuts is not a plan, it is a suicide pact.


I'd love to see some cites regarding the 1.2 Billion number. Any I can check out?

actually it's 1.4 I added the link to my post.

#20 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:32 PM

Where was your outrage when we spent that kinda coin on Dubya?

#21 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,162 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:34 PM

Where was your outrage when we spent that kinda coin on Dubya?

I love this tidbit
Obama has a staff of 469 plus 43 “Czars” including a dog handler who made $102,000 last year.

Edit: It isn't the office holder it is the crazy out of control spending Washington accepts as normal.

#22 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:36 PM

This is a negotiation, folks, a process, which, if successful, inevitably ends in compromise. Watch the process, not the content, at this point. The end product may have very little to do with the opening positions and while the sides are still talking there is hope of success. Of course, if you're against negotiation, there are other means of settling disagreements.


+1.

Republicans have squandered previous opportunities to negotiate and have a much weaker starting position to work from as a result. DemocRATs still need to negotiate in good faith in order to get anything meaningful done, but there is not a thing in the world wrong with an opening gambit that represents their platform from a position of strength. Pissing and moaning about how unfair it is, or how social-tastic it seems accomplishes exactly squat.

#23 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:38 PM

W left the house in order which is why he is so widely loved even to this day.

#24 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:39 PM

Doesn't a willingness to discuss tax increases indicate negotiation in good faith?

Doesn't taking that ball and running it into a trillion in tax increases, eliminating congressional control of debt and near zero spending reduction make the case that his maner is dictatorial?

It's pretty much a fiscal Morsi move.


No, it indicates a recognition that the jig is up and that their beholden-ness to Grover is doing them a lot more harm than good. So Eric The Cantor comes out and fesses up that 'additional revenues' are on the table. They haven't conceded anything with respect to rates ... yet.


'A fiscal Morsi move'? Yeah, yeah. Queue the Hitler mustache. That'll help.

#25 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:41 PM

I just find it unconscionable that Obama does not adopt the GOP position at the beginning of negotiations (despite taking it in the end, no pun intended). How audacious, salacious, and positively outrageous.

#26 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,162 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:42 PM

W left the house in order which is why he is so widely loved even to this day.

Clinton staffers trashed it when they left and he is the all time hero of the left, different standards indeed.....

#27 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:42 PM


Where was your outrage when we spent that kinda coin on Dubya?

I love this tidbit
Obama has a staff of 469 plus 43 “Czars” including a dog handler who made $102,000 last year.

Edit: It isn't the office holder it is the crazy out of control spending Washington accepts as normal.

I dunno. I'd probably like to see something a little more tangible than a blog quoting a dude before I fire up my Outrage.

#28 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,162 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:45 PM



Where was your outrage when we spent that kinda coin on Dubya?

I love this tidbit
Obama has a staff of 469 plus 43 “Czars” including a dog handler who made $102,000 last year.

Edit: It isn't the office holder it is the crazy out of control spending Washington accepts as normal.

I dunno. I'd probably like to see something a little more tangible than a blog quoting a dude before I fire up my Outrage.


You would have served well on the OJ jury If the leash doesn't fit you must acquitt

#29 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:46 PM

Look at it this way....the R's are all the way out to the "kill SS and Medicare" mark on their end of teeter-tooter....

#30 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:50 PM


W left the house in order which is why he is so widely loved even to this day.

Clinton staffers trashed it when they left and he is the all time hero of the left, different standards indeed.....


Uh huh. What did Rush tell you they did? Take all the 'W''s out of the keyboards? Yeah, that old chestnut. Brilliant. Meanwhile, back in the real world, time marches on. Suffa.

#31 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:53 PM




Where was your outrage when we spent that kinda coin on Dubya?

I love this tidbit
Obama has a staff of 469 plus 43 “Czars” including a dog handler who made $102,000 last year.

Edit: It isn't the office holder it is the crazy out of control spending Washington accepts as normal.

I dunno. I'd probably like to see something a little more tangible than a blog quoting a dude before I fire up my Outrage.


You would have served well on the OJ jury If the leash doesn't fit you must acquitt

Do you not learn your lesson after you bite hard on every single Outrage of the Day?

If it's true I'm pissed. Most of these are not true.

#32 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,459 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:23 PM


Doesn't a willingness to discuss tax increases indicate negotiation in good faith?

Doesn't taking that ball and running it into a trillion in tax increases, eliminating congressional control of debt and near zero spending reduction make the case that his maner is dictatorial?

It's pretty much a fiscal Morsi move.


No, it indicates a recognition that the jig is up and that their beholden-ness to Grover is doing them a lot more harm than good. So Eric The Cantor comes out and fesses up that 'additional revenues' are on the table. They haven't conceded anything with respect to rates ... yet.


'A fiscal Morsi move'? Yeah, yeah. Queue the Hitler mustache. That'll help.


Ref bolded part: Why is it that the rates are so important? I would think that realized revenue would be a more effective metric. If a proposal generates the required revenue with a mechanism that didn't raise income tax rates, shouldn't it be seriously considered?

#33 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:34 PM

The guy who stood for fiscal responsibility didn't win many electoral votes.

Cue the Outrage Exercise #4, they've tired of #3.

Bla...bla...bla

#34 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

This is a negotiation, folks, a process, which, if successful, inevitably ends in compromise. Watch the process, not the content, at this point. The end product may have very little to do with the opening positions and while the sides are still talking there is hope of success. Of course, if you're against negotiation, there are other means of settling disagreements.

Sure it’s a negotiation…We expected a reasonably bad proposal, not one that insults the intelligence.

#35 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:56 PM

It isn't just unfair. It is SO Unfair.

#36 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:05 PM

Obama is simply pointing out in the opening gambit that he is negotiating from a position of strength. Pretty shrewd.

Regressive lawmakers are bitterly opposing tax hikes (rates) on the wealthy that opposition is silly and must be crushed before further discussion can take place.

#37 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:08 PM

An end to congressional control over borrowing limits.


This suggestion so anti-Constitutional that it ought be considered treasonous.

Anyone who still supports Obama after hearing this ought to at least be honest and admit what they actually feel - they like the idea of an Emperor Obama.

Question: would you who support Obama still be happy with dictatorial control of national debt if we had a George W. Bush - type President again? For the record, I abhor the idea of this Executive power regardless of who the President is.

Let's see if anyone actually tries to defend this shift of power, or if all I get is personal attacks for challenging it.

#38 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,526 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:11 PM

Where are the massive spending cuts? Slash it.

#39 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,822 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:17 PM

Edit: It isn't the office holder it is the crazy out of control spending Washington accepts as normal.


I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, in your post with that link, you took care in naming the Obamas.

Perhaps you are now becoming aware that the out-of-control spending did not begin on the day of Obama's inauguration. In fact, our spending problem spans decades and different parties having both the WH and Congressional majorities.

#40 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:21 PM

This suggestion so anti-Constitutional that it ought be considered treasonous.


Hyperbole aside, why do you think this is anti-Constitional? Congress still has to appropriate.

#41 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

It isn't just unfair. It is SO Unfair.


Santelli seems to think so too.

http://www.businessi...-camera-2012-11

#42 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:26 PM


This suggestion so anti-Constitutional that it ought be considered treasonous.


Hyperbole aside, why do you think this is anti-Constutional? Congress still has to appropriate.


Doesn't matter. Debt is a spending function - "power of the purse" - which a power specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. Ergo, giving control over debt increases to the Executive is anti-Constitutional, unless we amend the Constitution to reflect this change.

Answer me this: if control over the debt ceiling is unimportant because Congress still has to appropriate, why does Obama want it?

#43 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:35 PM

As long as Congress has appropriated the money, there is no Constitutional restriction on borrowing:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

BTW, the reason Obama wants this is because a yearly budget fight is enough. The debt limit is unnecessary Kubuki theater.

#44 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:46 PM

BTW, the reason Obama wants this is because a yearly budget fight is enough. The debt limit is unnecessary Kubuki theater.


Nonsense! The debt ceiling debate is MORE important that the yearly budget fight. A debt ceiling is SUPPOSED to cause budgetary angst.

It's Congress' job to justify the money they are going to spend. Part of that is also justifying increasing the debt we'll all have to pay back in order to spend the money they want to spend. Abdicating that responsibility to the Executive is anti-Constitutional, which makes Congress treasonous also if they give this power to the Executive.

#45 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:51 PM

It isn't just unfair. It is SO Unfair.

Bla...bla...bla

#46 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:53 PM



Doesn't a willingness to discuss tax increases indicate negotiation in good faith?

Doesn't taking that ball and running it into a trillion in tax increases, eliminating congressional control of debt and near zero spending reduction make the case that his maner is dictatorial?

It's pretty much a fiscal Morsi move.


No, it indicates a recognition that the jig is up and that their beholden-ness to Grover is doing them a lot more harm than good. So Eric The Cantor comes out and fesses up that 'additional revenues' are on the table. They haven't conceded anything with respect to rates ... yet.


'A fiscal Morsi move'? Yeah, yeah. Queue the Hitler mustache. That'll help.


Ref bolded part: Why is it that the rates are so important? I would think that realized revenue would be a more effective metric. If a proposal generates the required revenue with a mechanism that didn't raise income tax rates, shouldn't it be seriously considered?


Sure, but that's still playing with effective rates under the guise of not raising 'rates'. But to be clear: serious proposals should be seriously considered. No doubt about that on my part.

#47 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:54 PM


This is a negotiation, folks, a process, which, if successful, inevitably ends in compromise. Watch the process, not the content, at this point. The end product may have very little to do with the opening positions and while the sides are still talking there is hope of success. Of course, if you're against negotiation, there are other means of settling disagreements.

Sure it’s a negotiation…We expected a reasonably bad proposal, not one that insults the intelligence.


Given the Republicans' track record, I'm having a hard figuring how such a thing could be possible.

#48 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:55 PM

Posted Image

#49 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

ZZ, you seem throw around this Treason word a lot. It's actually defined in the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Also Wikipedia.

BTW, when W was paying for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars by sending the costs straight to debt and NOT budgeting for it, were you objecting? Because one of the first things that the treasonous Obama did was put those wars on the normal budgeting cycle.

#50 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:00 PM



This suggestion so anti-Constitutional that it ought be considered treasonous.


Hyperbole aside, why do you think this is anti-Constutional? Congress still has to appropriate.


Doesn't matter. Debt is a spending function - "power of the purse" - which a power specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. Ergo, giving control over debt increases to the Executive is anti-Constitutional, unless we amend the Constitution to reflect this change.

Answer me this: if control over the debt ceiling is unimportant because Congress still has to appropriate, why does Obama want it?


Please cite the specific provision of the Constitution that places within the realm of the legislative branch the power to raise the debt limit, because I don't see it.

As far as I can tell with this proposal, Congress will retain all its constitutional authority over spending and taxation, which by definition decides the size of the debt. What Congress would lose is the ability to contradict itself by refusing to allow Treasury to borrow the money required by Congress’ own spending and taxing decisions.

#51 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:02 PM

...
What Congress would lose is the ability to contradict itself by refusing to allow Treasury to borrow the money required by Congress’ own spending and taxing decisions.


That's a very good argument, Chuck. Hat's off.

#52 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:07 PM




This suggestion so anti-Constitutional that it ought be considered treasonous.


Hyperbole aside, why do you think this is anti-Constutional? Congress still has to appropriate.


Doesn't matter. Debt is a spending function - "power of the purse" - which a power specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. Ergo, giving control over debt increases to the Executive is anti-Constitutional, unless we amend the Constitution to reflect this change.

Answer me this: if control over the debt ceiling is unimportant because Congress still has to appropriate, why does Obama want it?


Please cite the specific provision of the Constitution that places within the realm of the legislative branch the power to raise the debt limit, because I don't see it.

As far as I can tell with this proposal, Congress will retain all its constitutional authority over spending and taxation, which by definition decides the size of the debt. What Congress would lose is the ability to contradict itself by refusing to allow Treasury to borrow the money required by Congress’ own spending and taxing decisions.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

#53 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:16 PM





This suggestion so anti-Constitutional that it ought be considered treasonous.


Hyperbole aside, why do you think this is anti-Constutional? Congress still has to appropriate.


Doesn't matter. Debt is a spending function - "power of the purse" - which a power specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. Ergo, giving control over debt increases to the Executive is anti-Constitutional, unless we amend the Constitution to reflect this change.

Answer me this: if control over the debt ceiling is unimportant because Congress still has to appropriate, why does Obama want it?


Please cite the specific provision of the Constitution that places within the realm of the legislative branch the power to raise the debt limit, because I don't see it.

As far as I can tell with this proposal, Congress will retain all its constitutional authority over spending and taxation, which by definition decides the size of the debt. What Congress would lose is the ability to contradict itself by refusing to allow Treasury to borrow the money required by Congress’ own spending and taxing decisions.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;


Uh huh, that is very nice, and I am very familiar with Article I enumerating the powers of the legislative branch, but your answer is irrelevant to my question, which focused on asking where the specific provision within the Constitution regarding the power of the Congress to "raise the debt limit" which sleepy rider seems to have such a big problem with.

#54 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:17 PM

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

Congress already delegates that power to the Treasury since Congress does not manage the borrowing itself. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch. This has been the case since at least 1917.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

#55 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:25 PM





Hyperbole aside, why do you think this is anti-Constutional? Congress still has to appropriate.


Doesn't matter. Debt is a spending function - "power of the purse" - which a power specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. Ergo, giving control over debt increases to the Executive is anti-Constitutional, unless we amend the Constitution to reflect this change.

Answer me this: if control over the debt ceiling is unimportant because Congress still has to appropriate, why does Obama want it?


Please cite the specific provision of the Constitution that places within the realm of the legislative branch the power to raise the debt limit, because I don't see it.

As far as I can tell with this proposal, Congress will retain all its constitutional authority over spending and taxation, which by definition decides the size of the debt. What Congress would lose is the ability to contradict itself by refusing to allow Treasury to borrow the money required by Congress’ own spending and taxing decisions.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;


Uh huh, that is very nice, and I am very familiar with Article I enumerating the powers of the legislative branch, but your answer is irrelevant to my question, which focused on asking where the specific provision within the Constitution regarding the power of the Congress to "raise the debt limit" which sleepy rider seems to have such a big problem with.

The constitution delegates responsibility for borrowing on the US credit to the congress. Do you imagine that some other branch has the responsibility for determining how much?

#56 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

Congress already delegates that power to the Treasury since Congress does not manage the borrowing itself. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch. This has been the case since at least 1917.

http://en.wikipedia....tes_public_debt


What, what, what?!?! You mean a right-wing jack-ass has gotten his hackles up on bad assumptions? Again? Oh my. How unsurprising.

#57 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,879 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:25 PM






Hyperbole aside, why do you think this is anti-Constutional? Congress still has to appropriate.


Doesn't matter. Debt is a spending function - "power of the purse" - which a power specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. Ergo, giving control over debt increases to the Executive is anti-Constitutional, unless we amend the Constitution to reflect this change.

Answer me this: if control over the debt ceiling is unimportant because Congress still has to appropriate, why does Obama want it?


Please cite the specific provision of the Constitution that places within the realm of the legislative branch the power to raise the debt limit, because I don't see it.

As far as I can tell with this proposal, Congress will retain all its constitutional authority over spending and taxation, which by definition decides the size of the debt. What Congress would lose is the ability to contradict itself by refusing to allow Treasury to borrow the money required by Congress’ own spending and taxing decisions.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;


Uh huh, that is very nice, and I am very familiar with Article I enumerating the powers of the legislative branch, but your answer is irrelevant to my question, which focused on asking where the specific provision within the Constitution regarding the power of the Congress to "raise the debt limit" which sleepy rider seems to have such a big problem with.


It's that part where they get to pass laws.

One of the many they have passed. The creation of the debt ceiling came about from the 1917 Liberty Bond Act.

Look at the history of US Bonds. There are some interesting insights to the feeling of the populace in their regard.

#58 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

It's that part where they get to pass laws.

One of the many they have passed. The creation of the debt ceiling came about from the 1917 Liberty Bond Act.

Look at the history of US Bonds. There are some interesting insights to the feeling of the populace in their regard.


This is true. The President currently doesn't have the Authority to raise the debt ceiling by itself and is asking for that Authority from Congress. Congress would still retain the purse strings of Appropriation.

#59 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:30 PM


To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

Congress already delegates that power to the Treasury since Congress does not manage the borrowing itself. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch. This has been the case since at least 1917.

http://en.wikipedia....tes_public_debt


What, what, what?!?! You mean a right-wing jack-ass has gotten his hackles up on bad assumptions? Again? Oh my. How unsurprising.

Of course the execitive branch executes. Congress also passes laws but the executive branch enforces them.

#60 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:31 PM

]The constitution delegates responsibility for borrowing on the US credit to the congress. Do you imagine that some other branch has the responsibility for determining how much?


No, not at all. And given that Money In - Money Out = Balance, and given that Congress decides both parts of the left hand side of that equation, it is clear that 'raising the debt limit' is already and irrevocably fully within their power to decide. "Raising the debt limit" is nothing more than procedural move that the Teahadi's have tried to use as a weapon of sorts to force trainwrecks that are the hallmark of their very special brand of bad governance, by, in effect, just putting the legislative branch in a position of contradicting itself. Their is nothing enshrined in the Constitution regarding that sort of procedural measure, ergo, it can go away.

#61 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:32 PM



Uh huh, that is very nice, and I am very familiar with Article I enumerating the powers of the legislative branch, but your answer is irrelevant to my question, which focused on asking where the specific provision within the Constitution regarding the power of the Congress to "raise the debt limit" which sleepy rider seems to have such a big problem with.


It's that part where they get to pass laws.

One of the many they have passed. The creation of the debt ceiling came about from the 1917 Liberty Bond Act.

Look at the history of US Bonds. There are some interesting insights to the feeling of the populace in their regard.


Shweet, so that act can be amended or otherwise changed to remove it. No implications for Article I there, eh?

#62 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:38 PM


]The constitution delegates responsibility for borrowing on the US credit to the congress. Do you imagine that some other branch has the responsibility for determining how much?


No, not at all. And given that Money In - Money Out = Balance, and given that Congress decides both parts of the left hand side of that equation, it is clear that 'raising the debt limit' is already and irrevocably fully within their power to decide.


Thank you.

#63 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:48 PM



]The constitution delegates responsibility for borrowing on the US credit to the congress. Do you imagine that some other branch has the responsibility for determining how much?


No, not at all. And given that Money In - Money Out = Balance, and given that Congress decides both parts of the left hand side of that equation, it is clear that 'raising the debt limit' is already and irrevocably fully within their power to decide.


Thank you.


You are welcome. So why the objection to the elimination of a procedural measure that is redundant?

Edit: also keep in mind that by negotiating this change away and back to the status quo, something has been given to the Republicans which costs exactly nothing.

#64 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:59 PM




]The constitution delegates responsibility for borrowing on the US credit to the congress. Do you imagine that some other branch has the responsibility for determining how much?


No, not at all. And given that Money In - Money Out = Balance, and given that Congress decides both parts of the left hand side of that equation, it is clear that 'raising the debt limit' is already and irrevocably fully within their power to decide.


Thank you.


You are welcome. So why the objection to the elimination of a procedural measure that is redundant?

Edit: also keep in mind that by negotiating this change away and back to the status quo, something has been given to the Republicans which costs exactly nothing.

It’s the... “and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits”... that’s problematic.

#65 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,879 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

Congress already delegates that power to the Treasury since Congress does not manage the borrowing itself. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch. This has been the case since at least 1917.

http://en.wikipedia....tes_public_debt



There is no reason they can't rescind that delegation of power.

#66 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:28 PM


To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

Congress already delegates that power to the Treasury since Congress does not manage the borrowing itself. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch. This has been the case since at least 1917.

http://en.wikipedia....tes_public_debt



There is no reason they can't rescind that delegation of power.


No reason they can't stop appropriating funds and then refuse to raise the debt limit to cover it too.

#67 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:42 PM

It’s the... “and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits”... that’s problematic.


Which is redundant. Borrowing follows the need to borrow, which Congress itself determines through it's constitutional enshrined power to tax and spend. They have the upstream component solely in their court. The downstream ramifications of the decisions they make do not need (per the Constitution, anyway) to reside with them.



To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

Congress already delegates that power to the Treasury since Congress does not manage the borrowing itself. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch. This has been the case since at least 1917.

http://en.wikipedia....tes_public_debt



There is no reason they can't rescind that delegation of power.


No reason they can't stop appropriating funds and then refuse to raise the debt limit to cover it too.


Ding!

#68 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:09 PM


It’s the... “and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits”... that’s problematic.


Which is redundant. Borrowing follows the need to borrow, which Congress itself determines through it's constitutional enshrined power to tax and spend. They have the upstream component solely in their court. The downstream ramifications of the decisions they make do not need (per the Constitution, anyway) to reside with them.

Bullshit…borrowing does not necessarily follow the need to borrow. Imagine a Republican president with the power to limit how much congress could borrow. How’s that sound to you Chuck?

#69 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,879 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:14 PM



It’s the... “and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits”... that’s problematic.


Which is redundant. Borrowing follows the need to borrow, which Congress itself determines through it's constitutional enshrined power to tax and spend. They have the upstream component solely in their court. The downstream ramifications of the decisions they make do not need (per the Constitution, anyway) to reside with them.

Bullshit…borrowing does not necessarily follow the need to borrow.


Borrowing comes from spending more than you have coming in.

#70 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,459 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:15 PM



It’s the... “and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits”... that’s problematic.


Which is redundant. Borrowing follows the need to borrow, which Congress itself determines through it's constitutional enshrined power to tax and spend. They have the upstream component solely in their court. The downstream ramifications of the decisions they make do not need (per the Constitution, anyway) to reside with them.

Bullshit…borrowing does not necessarily follow the need to borrow. Imagine a Republican president with the power to limit how much congress could borrow. How’s that sound to you Chuck?


But, the rich have hurt everyone else, and, and, and, and, THEY NEED TO PAY!
The assholes on both sides are more interested in "winning" than they are in fixing any problems. What's that look like? To the hardline Republicans - it's by adopting a stance of uncompromising idiocy. To the left - it's by showing the idiot masses that they "made those evil rich bastards pay".

Here's the $64K question: When do either of these 'actions' get us out of the fiscal mess that we're in? If I thought it'd help - I'd erect a monument to Obama in my front yard, and invite Hillary to supper. it won't - any more than wishing for pink unicorns to spread love dust across the world will make everyone get along.

It's well past time to argue ideology - and well past time to engineer a solution to the mess that ALL the people that have comprised our electorate for the past 20 years have created.

#71 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:30 PM




It’s the... “and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits”... that’s problematic.


Which is redundant. Borrowing follows the need to borrow, which Congress itself determines through it's constitutional enshrined power to tax and spend. They have the upstream component solely in their court. The downstream ramifications of the decisions they make do not need (per the Constitution, anyway) to reside with them.

Bullshit…borrowing does not necessarily follow the need to borrow.


Borrowing comes from spending more than you have coming in.


Thus, the critical importance of having a "debt limit" in the first place.

If debt limits aren't important, why do credit cards have borrowing limits? Why can't I take out a loan for $?

#72 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:46 PM

But, the rich have hurt everyone else, and, and, and, and, THEY NEED TO PAY!
The assholes on both sides are more interested in "winning" than they are in fixing any problems. What's that look like? To the hardline Republicans - it's by adopting a stance of uncompromising idiocy. To the left - it's by showing the idiot masses that they "made those evil rich bastards pay".

Here's the $64K question: When do either of these 'actions' get us out of the fiscal mess that we're in? If I thought it'd help - I'd erect a monument to Obama in my front yard, and invite Hillary to supper. it won't - any more than wishing for pink unicorns to spread love dust across the world will make everyone get along.

It's well past time to argue ideology - and well past time to engineer a solution to the mess that ALL the people that have comprised our electorate for the past 20 years have created.


It wasn't the last 20 years. Clinton left surpluses which Bush squandered.
Still, this is very fixable, especially with the improving economy.

Spending needs to go down which is definitely defense and probably some other stuff being negotiated.
Taxes need to go up and yes, that's on $250,000+ crowd. This election was a referendum on that.

#73 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:52 PM



It’s the... “and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits”... that’s problematic.


Which is redundant. Borrowing follows the need to borrow, which Congress itself determines through it's constitutional enshrined power to tax and spend. They have the upstream component solely in their court. The downstream ramifications of the decisions they make do not need (per the Constitution, anyway) to reside with them.

Bullshit…borrowing does not necessarily follow the need to borrow. Imagine a Republican president with the power to limit how much congress could borrow. How’s that sound to you Chuck?


Just as shitty as the concept of a unitary executive.

What proposal has such a thing?

#74 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,459 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:54 PM


But, the rich have hurt everyone else, and, and, and, and, THEY NEED TO PAY!
The assholes on both sides are more interested in "winning" than they are in fixing any problems. What's that look like? To the hardline Republicans - it's by adopting a stance of uncompromising idiocy. To the left - it's by showing the idiot masses that they "made those evil rich bastards pay".

Here's the $64K question: When do either of these 'actions' get us out of the fiscal mess that we're in? If I thought it'd help - I'd erect a monument to Obama in my front yard, and invite Hillary to supper. it won't - any more than wishing for pink unicorns to spread love dust across the world will make everyone get along.

It's well past time to argue ideology - and well past time to engineer a solution to the mess that ALL the people that have comprised our electorate for the past 20 years have created.


It wasn't the last 20 years. Clinton left surpluses which Bush squandered.
Still, this is very fixable, especially with the improving economy.

Spending needs to go down which is definitely defense and probably some other stuff being negotiated.
Taxes need to go up and yes, that's on $250,000+ crowd. This election was a referendum on that.


Only on the $250K + crowd? How much of an increase is planned, how much will that bring in, and with that degree of revenue increase when does the deficit close? When the deficit DOES close, what is the plan to let people keep the money that's no longer necessary to close the deficit?

Sorry bud - from where I sit, I don't see that plan closing.

#75 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:59 PM

Yep, only on the $250,000+ crowd. That's been estimated at about $1T.

http://reason.com/bl...in-the-fiscal-c

Letting rates rise on top earners would raise a little less than $1 trillion.

#76 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,459 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:13 PM

Yep, only on the $250,000+ crowd. That's been estimated at about $1T.

http://reason.com/bl...in-the-fiscal-c

Letting rates rise on top earners would raise a little less than $1 trillion.


Address the rest of the question, please - as your answer thus far seems to confirm my estimation that the "punish the rich" plan doesn't close. Your cite claims a very coarse number, and addresses only a small part of the question.

If this action doesn't close the gap - where's the rest of the plan to do that? I'm not willing to accept incremental steps as appropriate until I see how they fit into the overall plan to close the deficit gap. Only then can the efficacy of the proposed solution be compared against others. If the electorate isn't willing to permit this comparison, then they're really not interested in the best solution, are they?

#77 frenchie

frenchie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:20 PM


Where was your outrage when we spent that kinda coin on Dubya?

I love this tidbit
Obama has a staff of 469 plus 43 “Czars” including a dog handler who made $102,000 last year.

Edit: It isn't the office holder it is the crazy out of control spending Washington accepts as normal.


I love the way your source is a book that provides no sources for its allegations.

http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=0


edit:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40980_About_That_Taxpayers_Spent_$1.4_Billion_on_Obama_Family_Last_Year_Fake_Outrage

gotta love those cartoons.

#78 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,162 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:07 PM



Where was your outrage when we spent that kinda coin on Dubya?

I love this tidbit
Obama has a staff of 469 plus 43 “Czars” including a dog handler who made $102,000 last year.

Edit: It isn't the office holder it is the crazy out of control spending Washington accepts as normal.


I love the way your source is a book that provides no sources for its allegations.

http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=0


edit:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40980_About_That_Taxpayers_Spent_$1.4_Billion_on_Obama_Family_Last_Year_Fake_Outrage

gotta love those cartoons.

always the messenger attack. Glad to see All is well in the lefty world. Obama is out campaigning again on our dollar. Go the O man

#79 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:16 PM

Just because the messenger lied his ass off is no reason to criticize him. It's so unfair.

#80 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,243 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:27 PM

Possible Dem strategy.

Go off the cliff. The new congress will be hell bent on restoring "middle class" tax breaks to show they can actually do something. Spending, especially defense, will already have taken a cut and it will be to pass new, incremental spending on top of the new, current law.

Net net, the Dems get their higher rates on high income earners, and can take credit for lowering spend - all while knowing that the "do nothing congress" will get right to cutting taxes for the middle earners.

#81 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:17 PM


But, the rich have hurt everyone else, and, and, and, and, THEY NEED TO PAY!
The assholes on both sides are more interested in "winning" than they are in fixing any problems. What's that look like? To the hardline Republicans - it's by adopting a stance of uncompromising idiocy. To the left - it's by showing the idiot masses that they "made those evil rich bastards pay".

Here's the $64K question: When do either of these 'actions' get us out of the fiscal mess that we're in? If I thought it'd help - I'd erect a monument to Obama in my front yard, and invite Hillary to supper. it won't - any more than wishing for pink unicorns to spread love dust across the world will make everyone get along.

It's well past time to argue ideology - and well past time to engineer a solution to the mess that ALL the people that have comprised our electorate for the past 20 years have created.


It wasn't the last 20 years. Clinton left surpluses which Bush squandered.
Still, this is very fixable, especially with the improving economy.

Spending needs to go down which is definitely defense and probably some other stuff being negotiated.
Taxes need to go up and yes, that's on $250,000+ crowd. This election was a referendum on that.


The delusion is strong in this one.

1) "Clinton left surpluses".
FML. You Liberals trot this out at least 3 times a week. A perfect whack-a-mole game. Let's talk facts here, not bumper-sticker slogans. First, there were only 4 years of "surplus", not 20: 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Second: taxing and spending is a Congressional function, not Executive. The Republicans were firmly in charge of Congress during these years (Remember Gingrich and the "Contract with America"?). So you'd be far more accurate to state this as "Gingrich left us with surpluses" if you have any interest in honesty.

Now, about those surpluses: these were the sole product of the unsustainable economic conditions of the dotcom bubble. I've yet to hear anyone propose a cogent explanation for how this venture-capital madness would have been permanently sustainable, or how it would have somehow not popped if Al Gore had been elected. These surpluses amounted to a grand total of $558 billion over all four years, or just half of our current annual budget deficit. To suggest this has any relevance whatsoever to today's economy is ludicrous.

I'm just going to start cut-and-pasting this response; I'm sure it will only be a matter of days before one of the usual suspects trots out this "Clinton Surplus" pablum again.

2) "Still, this is very fixable, especially with the improving economy."
For the nth time, there is no recovery. What we have is an illusion of recovery created through structural federal budget deficits and distorted monetary policy from the Federal Reserve. Remove the deficit spending, stop diluting the currency, and allow interest rates to seek normal market-driven rates and your "recovery" disappears - i.e., IT ISN'T REAL.

If I wanted to, I could fake a hell of a good lifestyle on credit, for a while. That's all we're doing as a nation.

A_guy is absolutely right - for at least the past 20 years, our entire electorate, R and D alike, has been guilty of sticking us with the fiscal disaster we have today.

#82 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:21 PM

Possible Dem strategy.

Go off the cliff. The new congress will be hell bent on restoring "middle class" tax breaks to show they can actually do something. Spending, especially defense, will already have taken a cut and it will be to pass new, incremental spending on top of the new, current law.

Net net, the Dems get their higher rates on high income earners, and can take credit for lowering spend - all while knowing that the "do nothing congress" will get right to cutting taxes for the middle earners.



A win for the dems and america. Perfect!

#83 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:30 PM

As for the Clinton Budget Surpluses, they were $69 billion in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000:


http://www.factcheck...-under-clinton/


As for the Obama Recovery:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth


U.S. GDP Growth Revised to 2.7 Percent in Q3

U.S. Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, federal government spending, residential fixed investment, and exports that were partly offset by negative contributions from nonresidential fixed investment and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased slightly.


Deal with it.

#84 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:47 PM

As for the Clinton Budget Surpluses, they were $69 billion in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000:


http://www.factcheck...-under-clinton/


As for the Obama Recovery:

http://www.tradingec...ates/gdp-growth


U.S. GDP Growth Revised to 2.7 Percent in Q3

U.S. Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, federal government spending, residential fixed investment, and exports that were partly offset by negative contributions from nonresidential fixed investment and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased slightly.


Deal with it.



You really have no idea how stupid your responses make you look, do you? I never disputed the amount of the Gingrich surpluses. You conveniently forgot the $128 billion 2001 surplus. I suppose you omitted that one because it occurred during the Bush's first term and thus doesn't fit your partisan narrative, right?

Again, what is your point in bringing up the Gingrich surpluses? Please address this in the context of the economic conditions that led to these surpluses - the dotcom bubble. As it stands, you're just reiterating things I've already said.

Same goes for your "Obama recovery". I merely pointed out the FACT that this "recovery" is FAKE - the product of structural deficit spending and central bank manipulation. Remove the deficit spending and central bank games, and the "recovery" goes away. That's a fact. YOU deal with it.

#85 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:51 PM

You do know that Newt Gingrich resigned the Speakership of the House on November 8, 1998?
He runs for President these days and does Amazon book reviews. Important stuff.

#86 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

You do know that Newt Gingrich resigned the Speakership of the House on November 8, 1998?
He runs for President these days and does Amazon book reviews. Important stuff.


Wow. Is that really all you've got? You can't even attempt to tackle a defense of your own post with any actual substance?

To recap, you brought up the late 90's surpluses and the "Obama recovery", to which I merely responded with facts:

1) That the surpluses were the result of a fleeting and unsustainable economic bubble, during which the Republicans were in charge of taxing and spending, and that none of this really has any signifance or application to current economic conditions.

2) That the present "Obama recovery" is pure illusion, formed of deficit spending and destructive central bank monetary policy.

Ok, who's next? Olsonist just tapped out.

#87 opa1

opa1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • Location:Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
  • Interests:Golf, Sailing

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:16 AM

Here's the problem(s) that the Republicans have:
1. Their policies have been in effect for 12 years, and they haven't worked. If anything, these policies have put us back 75 years.
2. The have been in control of the House for 2 years and they haven't gotten anything done.
3. The Republicans in the Senate, i.e. McCain, are all talk and no substance. Without the filibuster, they would be out-of-business. They offer no policies of substance.
4. The Republican foreign policies under the Bush Admin (8 years) put us so deep into a hole with the world that it may be unlikely that we can get out of that hole. Now here will be the Republican response to this post: SCREW THE WORLD.
5. Republican Congressmen/women are beholding to a guy named Grover. P.S. He's unelected.
6. Republican Congressmen/women and presidential nominees are beholding to the GOP Platform, which is anti-anything that is not WHITE ANGO SAXON PROTESTANT. Remeber WASP.
7. The GOP can't get along with the Tea Party faction and I guess they can't get along without the Tea Party factions. In my opinion the Tea Party faction could care less about the Republican Party. They only see the Republican Party as an outlet to lobby they ideology. They will kiss them goodbye when they have the power to do so.

#88 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,776 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:18 AM

Posted Image

#89 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,202 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:30 AM


First we get two budget proposals that were so unserious that not a single member of congress could vote for either of them and now this. A proposal which increases spending and reduces oversight with a GOAL to make cuts later.
No one who favors fiscal responsibility can support this shit.


Elections have consequences, and the Republicans have much to lose if they choose to continue down the intransigence path they've been sticking to over the last four years. Obama has stated that he's open to good faith negotiations, and, obviously, this is the public facing side of the work going on with House and Senate leadership.

I favor fiscal responsibility, and I absolutely support 'this shit'. This is hardball, baby.

The Republican's "my way or highway" modus operandi is kaput, whether they choose to realize it or not ... they do that and the alternative is sequestration and big tax hikes, i.e., they lose.


I could give a damn if Republicans pay a huge political penalty for stopping the insanity, even if it means fiscal cliff. "Negotiation" means give and take. It does not mean "give me twice the revenue I ran on and we'll discuss spending cuts later".

I do hope the GOP dig in and let Obama drive the bus off the fiscal cliff. It was Obama, after all, who signed the law.

Besides, those who are stupid enough to think Clinton's tax policies were responsible for a robust economy, might as well double down on stupidity and embrace raising taxes on everyone to the same level as when Clinton was in office.

Jesus - Politicians on both sides are bad enough without giving any president the kind of power Obama is asking for.

Bring on the cliff.

#90 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:36 AM

I could give a damn if Republicans pay a huge political penalty for stopping the insanity, even if it means fiscal cliff. "Negotiation" means give and take. It does not mean "give me twice the revenue I ran on and we'll discuss spending cuts later".

I do hope the GOP dig in and let Obama drive the bus off the fiscal cliff. It was Obama, after all, who signed the law.


They should stop the insanity, most of which they made. But the question is how? Obviously they didn't believe in stopping the insanity during the last couple of years, or they would have defunded the wars, rolled back the tax breaks, etc.

RD - you appear to be one of the few still getting fooled. Let me spell it out - the present day GOP is NOT your fathers Republic Party. IKE had tax rates up in the 90% area and funded some of the biggest stimuluses of all time. The current GOP is the Party of the Rich and Big Business.

Folks like me will fight long and hard to make certain that Big Business does not have a bigger hand than they already do at controlling the country.

Be my guest. Let the GOP take more political hits and then we can have a Dem Majority in all of the Fed. Government. Then, after that, give them 4-8 years and if they don't get everything on the proper track, kick them out.

#91 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,202 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:03 AM


I could give a damn if Republicans pay a huge political penalty for stopping the insanity, even if it means fiscal cliff. "Negotiation" means give and take. It does not mean "give me twice the revenue I ran on and we'll discuss spending cuts later".

I do hope the GOP dig in and let Obama drive the bus off the fiscal cliff. It was Obama, after all, who signed the law.


They should stop the insanity, most of which they made. But the question is how? Obviously they didn't believe in stopping the insanity during the last couple of years, or they would have defunded the wars, rolled back the tax breaks, etc.

RD - you appear to be one of the few still getting fooled. Let me spell it out - the present day GOP is NOT your fathers Republic Party. IKE had tax rates up in the 90% area and funded some of the biggest stimuluses of all time. The current GOP is the Party of the Rich and Big Business.

Folks like me will fight long and hard to make certain that Big Business does not have a bigger hand than they already do at controlling the country.

Be my guest. Let the GOP take more political hits and then we can have a Dem Majority in all of the Fed. Government. Then, after that, give them 4-8 years and if they don't get everything on the proper track, kick them out.


4-8 years? Health Care Reform is law now with little chance of repeal, and Obama got that done in a year. 4-8 years later will be far too late. We will be Greece.

How the hell does someone who wants jobs have such animosity towards businesses who create them? Fuck you Walmart! I'll collect unemployment before I become your slave at a minimum wage job. And if my unemployment, food stamps, and other Gov't programs ever run out, I'm going to riot in the streets.

Fine - let's try this trickle up poverty thing.

#92 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:27 AM

For a long time, the Modern GOP has been a coalition of a few MBAs with a bunch of Jesus freak high school dropouts. And for a long time you could always count on the MBAs to herd the HSDs. God, Guns and Gays were all the HSDs really cared about and elections were won. Life was good for the MBAs. But then the HSDs discovered the Tea. And now that the HSDs get drunk on the Tea, there's really no telling what they'll do. Heck, they'll jump off a Cliff just so that they can blame it on the Kenyan. The HSDs don't like the Kenyan.

In the last election, the one that the Kenyan won, the HSDs dutifully pulled the oxcart for their godlike MBA standard bearer. The HSDs are good at that sort of work; in fact, some (MBAs) say they were born for it. The GOP even let them have a few minor candidates to call their own although the Party came to regret this. HSDs shouldn't really be allowed near a microphone.

Oh if only the HSDs would learn their place again. Unfortunately, they have found the Tea.

#93 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:31 AM

4-8 years? Health Care Reform is law now with little chance of repeal, and Obama got that done in a year. 4-8 years later will be far too late. We will be Greece.

How the hell does someone who wants jobs have such animosity towards businesses who create them? Fuck you Walmart! I'll collect unemployment before I become your slave at a minimum wage job. And if my unemployment, food stamps, and other Gov't programs ever run out, I'm going to riot in the streets.

Fine - let's try this trickle up poverty thing.


You're losing it again, RD.

Obamacare does not go into force fully until 2014 on - probably won't feel real economic effects for another 3-4 years and longer.

As to the wal-mart thing, I somewhat agree. No way I was brought up to be a slave. I'll live in a tent out on the land before I destroy my days slaving for some billionaires.....

#94 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,879 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:45 AM

In the last election, the one that the Kenyan won, the HSDs dutifully pulled the oxcart for their godlike MBA standard bearer. The HSDs are good at that sort of work; in fact, some (MBAs) say they were born for it.


Obama is a Kenyan in the same way that I am a Scots Irish German mongrel.

I don't know why you insist on bringing up his heritage you racist fuck.

#95 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:04 AM



In the last election, the one that the Kenyan won, the HSDs dutifully pulled the oxcart for their godlike MBA standard bearer. The HSDs are good at that sort of work; in fact, some (MBAs) say they were born for it.


Obama is a Kenyan in the same way that I am a Scots Irish German mongrel.

I don't know why you insist on bringing up his heritage you racist fuck.

Oops. From the name, I assumed you were another kind of Irish. Sorry.

#96 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:18 AM



I could give a damn if Republicans pay a huge political penalty for stopping the insanity, even if it means fiscal cliff. "Negotiation" means give and take. It does not mean "give me twice the revenue I ran on and we'll discuss spending cuts later".

I do hope the GOP dig in and let Obama drive the bus off the fiscal cliff. It was Obama, after all, who signed the law.


They should stop the insanity, most of which they made. But the question is how? Obviously they didn't believe in stopping the insanity during the last couple of years, or they would have defunded the wars, rolled back the tax breaks, etc.

RD - you appear to be one of the few still getting fooled. Let me spell it out - the present day GOP is NOT your fathers Republic Party. IKE had tax rates up in the 90% area and funded some of the biggest stimuluses of all time. The current GOP is the Party of the Rich and Big Business.

Folks like me will fight long and hard to make certain that Big Business does not have a bigger hand than they already do at controlling the country.

Be my guest. Let the GOP take more political hits and then we can have a Dem Majority in all of the Fed. Government. Then, after that, give them 4-8 years and if they don't get everything on the proper track, kick them out.


4-8 years? Health Care Reform is law now with little chance of repeal, and Obama got that done in a year. 4-8 years later will be far too late. We will be Greece.

How the hell does someone who wants jobs have such animosity towards businesses who create them? Fuck you Walmart! I'll collect unemployment before I become your slave at a minimum wage job. And if my unemployment, food stamps, and other Gov't programs ever run out, I'm going to riot in the streets.

Fine - let's try this trickle up poverty thing.


Seven missed meals, my boy. Seven missed meals.

#97 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,879 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:28 AM



In the last election, the one that the Kenyan won, the HSDs dutifully pulled the oxcart for their godlike MBA standard bearer. The HSDs are good at that sort of work; in fact, some (MBAs) say they were born for it.


Obama is a Kenyan in the same way that I am a Scots Irish German mongrel.

I don't know why you insist on bringing up his heritage you racist fuck.

Oops. From the name, I assumed you were another kind of Irish. Sorry.


Well, the family got thrown out of Scotland during the clearances and made it as far as northern Ireland where the clan map always shows the name with an (sc) tag after it. Then, four brothers left ireland and sailed to america from Liverpool England. They landed somewhere in Virginia and scattered from there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users