Who has the most to lose if we go off the Fiscal Cliff? New poll says Republicans...

[Fern]

lol @ nobody. There were Republican members of Congress during Obama's first term and as recently as today that wanted to remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, were claiming it was cutting and running. McCain was campaigned on being in Iraq for as long as it took, specifically saying 100 years if need be, as recently as 2008. Anyone dumb enough to think Republicans wouldn't have continued both wars or certainly escalated them enough to spend more than Obama had Obama never won, wasn't paying attention then and certainly isn't paying attention now. And in that context, I guess your post makes perfect sense, lol.
-snip-

We've been through this before....

We cannot remain in Iraq. The UN pulled the mandate and Iraq said "no". End of story.

Even if Iraq had agreed, a President can't do such things on his own, he needs the approval of Congress. That ain't gonna happen, if only because the Dems in the Senate wouldn't allow it.

Fern

 

[First]

Have you seen any analysis on how much revenue cane be raised by reducing/eliminating deductions for the +$250k group? I haven't seen any yet. But I find it hard to believe that sufficient revenue cannot be raised by merely doing that (cutting their deductions).

Yes, if you had been paying attention at all, they've been discussed in quite a lot of detail. See Tax Policy Center study showing the limits of said deductions.

And no, you don't have to reduce deductions for those under $250k if you cut them for the +$250k crowd. For many years deductions (as well as credits and exemptions etc.) were phased-out based on income. No reason we can't go back to that.

You can only work with the current reality, and fact is we would HAVE to do that, except nowhere has it been proposed. Otherwise mortgage interest deductions that disappear would disproportionately hit middle class people, that's simple fact.

That's stupid. No matter what anybody does those cost decreases are going to occur. Accordingly, they shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

The fact that Obama's blowout election and supermajority in Congress finally moved the needle from reckless war-mongering spending to everyone simply accepting that the wars would be put on timetables and winded down is to his credit, and should be reflected in his deficit cut projections.

We've been through this before....

We cannot remain in Iraq. The UN pulled the mandate and Iraq said "no". End of story.

No, again, Iraq saying "No" didn't stop the last admin from invading in 2003. As I already quite clearly addressed WRT UN mandate, they never had a real one to begin with and you're naive if you think it would have stopped them from going in. Sorry.

Even if Iraq had agreed, a President can't do such things on his own, he needs the approval of Congress. That ain't gonna happen, if only because the Dems in the Senate wouldn't allow it.

Fern

We're talking about a alternate reality where a Republican has been elected POTUS, thereby making the likelihood of a Dem Senate quite slim.

 

[buckshot24]

You said "residual force". Back up your bullshit statement. Thanks.

Fuck off.

I'm practically a sage.

From his Bullshit campaign glossy we find this gem.

"President Obama would commit half of the money saved from responsibly
ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to reducing the deficit and the other
half to putting Americans back to work rebuilding roads, bridges, runways,
and schools here in the United States."

Since you didn't like my other analogy, try this.

Its like a family having a budget problem then they say they won't go out to eat anymore since they can't afford it. So they decide to take half of the money that they would have had to of borrowed to go out to eat to pay down their debt and the other to buy a new kitchen.

Not wanting to cut the DoD budget is simply yet another indication of how they'd prioritize the budget WRT actual war fronts such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, etc. More spending, hence the need for Obama to reflect that he would save more compared to these war hawks.

Therefore the republicans would have had us in WW3 so it is legitimate to count the money we would have spent under these wars as spending savings. What horseshit.

 

[buckshot24]

The fact that Obama's blowout election and supermajority in Congress finally moved the needle from reckless war-mongering spending to everyone simply accepting that the wars would be put on timetables and winded down is to his credit, and should be reflected in his deficit cut projections.

What a fucking hack.

No, again, Iraq saying "No" didn't stop the last admin from invading in 2003. As I already quite clearly addressed WRT UN mandate, they never had a real one to begin with and you're naive if you think it would have stopped them from going in. Sorry.

I'm not sure if you recall or not but the government controlling Iraq at that time was shooting at our fucking planes and shitting on UN resolutions. The government that is in place now is doing neither of those two things.

We're talking about a alternate reality where a Republican has been elected POTUS, thereby making the likelihood of a Dem Senate quite slim.

And Frodo would have lost the Ring of Power. Look at the lengths you have to go to make your beloved leader's BS smell like roses. HACK