Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Obama Waives Child Soldier Ban in Yemen and Congo


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
32 replies to this topic

#25 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 18,356
  • Reputation: 6,780
Administrators

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:46 PM

Geneva convention schmeneva convention... Again.

#26 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    Blazing Trails Thru the NFC South

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,331
  • Reputation: 4,582
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:57 AM

Somehow Bush is to blame.

#27 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,926
  • Reputation: 2,615
SUPPORTER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:06 AM

the sucky part about all this is that you can disengage to protest something you don't like, or carrot and stick it do death and never give up so you can try to make thing somewhat better.

Do you follow dogma, or be pragmatic?

This is a microcosm of our own political issues. Every sane economist understands that we need to raise revenues but when politicians sign arbitrary pledges restricting them from doing something they find unpleasant but necessary, who should win out?

#28 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,448
  • Reputation: 1,586
SUPPORTER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:04 AM

the sucky part about all this is that you can disengage to protest something you don't like, or carrot and stick it do death and never give up so you can try to make thing somewhat better.

Do you follow dogma, or be pragmatic?

This is a microcosm of our own political issues. Every sane economist understands that we need to raise revenues but when politicians sign arbitrary pledges restricting them from doing something they find unpleasant but necessary, who should win out?



Do you mean increase taxes?

What about spending cut instead?

#29 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,926
  • Reputation: 2,615
SUPPORTER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:18 PM

Theres no instead, we need both. The problem is not cutting spending, it's the fact that people don't want to cut their own stuff. In a normal system there is negotiation, cuts are passed, revenue is increased and no one is happy. In this broke dick system, common sense as well as the opinion polls back up my assertion that substituting ideology for pragmatism is the real killer in our current fiscal mess. Seriously, lets go over the fiscal cliff to prove a point? Lets force more job losses in a weak economy in order to show how tough we are about spending? It's idiotic - if we worked on jobs more and deficit talk less, we would create more jobs, create more revenue, which would help dig us out as well as improve lives (this is most economists view, not something I made up). But no, we have an Obama to defeat.

#30 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,926
  • Reputation: 2,615
SUPPORTER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:42 PM

http://www.charlotte...employment.html

like this kinda

The unemployment plan repays $2.5 billion owed the federal government for jobless benefits paid since the Great Recession by cutting maximum weekly jobless payments from $535 to $350 and the maximum number of weeks from 26 weeks to 12 to 20 weeks, depending on the state unemployment rate.
The bill also raises state unemployment taxes, partially through the elimination of a zero-percent rate that about 30,000 businesses have been paying. Federal taxes will continue to rise by $21 per employee per year until the debt is repaid and a 20-percent state surcharge will continue a little while longer.
McCrory, a Republican, announced during Monday night's State of the State address he would sign the bill, saying the state is going to stop borrowing money from the federal government without knowing how to pay it off.
"This bipartisan solution will protect our small businesses from continued over-taxation, ensure our citizens' unemployment safety net is secure and financially sound for future generations, and help provide an economic climate that allows job creators to start hiring again," McCrory said Tuesday in a statement


Read more here: http://www.charlotte...l#storylink=cpy



Read the article, I am sure that more Republicans are happy with it than Dems but they are in power now so thats the way bipartisan works. Not filibuster after filibuster and yelling NO to everything.

#31 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,189
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:00 PM

I understand what you are saying, but didn't the Feds raise taxes back in December? Shouldn't the President and Congressional Democrats be looking at some quid pro quo spending cuts, before more revenue increases are discussed?

#32 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,926
  • Reputation: 2,615
SUPPORTER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:06 PM

If you think that the Dems should just give away their bargaining chips as a gesture of good will so the Republicans will feel compelled to do the same, you are in a dream world.

As far as "raising taxes" not really sure, I think there were some expiring temp stuff that was actually allowed to expire as designed maybe?

#33 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,189
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:22 PM

The fiscal cliff deal allowed payroll tax decreases to expire, but it also increased income taxes on those making above 400 grand a year. It also changed some deductions on those making more than 250 grand a year. It was a tax increase, not as much as the president wanted, but it was something.

Now the democrats need to offer some spending cuts. Maybe not as much as what the republicans want, but they need to offer something. If they want the 89 house republicans who voted for the tax increase to vote for more of them, then its a necessity.