Am hearing this claim a lot. Can you cite (or point to) some details of exactly what Obama has proposed in the way of cuts to "Medicare and other social programs"?
Once more in English?Who says thaty don't?
You asked for an example of a Democrat who's a socialist who ran as a Democrat. That you don't address your own question means again... you don't want to answer. More dishonesty? I'm surprised [/sarc]Guess you didn't do your homework, in 2008, they ran Roger Calegro for President. How come the Tea Party won't do that?
They were according to the DSA - that's the Democratic Socialists of America website... :shrug: More denial. Again... color me surprised[/sarc]What they are not ... are members of the Socialist Party.
The Tea Party isn't a political party... did you miss that the first two times when I first stated it, then proved it? Oh that's right, a Florida Democrat registered the Tea Party as a 3rd party and therefore, that makes it applicable everywhere. :lamoThe Socialist Party runs candidates from their party. The Tea Party runs candidates as Republicans.
Well, it just shows that you didn't do your homework...Fair enough, he is now a registered Tea Partier and I apologize for getting that wrong.
It just goes to show you can't believe everything that you read and you need to "trust but verify".I read he was a registered Republican, but according to the link you posted, he was until he switched in 2005 to the Democrat Party because he was unhappy with the war in Iraq; before switching to the Tea Party in 2009. Still, wrong is wrong and I was wrong to say he "is" a Registered Republican.
That's a dodge.
If the debt was as bad as the conservatives say it is, why oh why, are countries willing to buy it? If you had too much debt, you couldn't get a loan with an interest rate even close to the current ones.
Here are the highlights of Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan:
The policy highlights in the President’s framework build on the down-payment included in his FY 2012 Budget. They include:
* Non-security discretionary spending: The President is proposing to build on the savings from the FY 2011 budget agreement, while investing in key drivers of economic growth like energy innovation, education, and infrastructure. This would entail cutting non-security discretionary spending to levels consistent with the Fiscal Commission, saving $770 billion by 2023.
* Security spending: The President’s framework will go beyond the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to achieve deeper reductions in security spending. It sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023.
* Health care: The President’s framework builds on the Affordable Care Act by including new reforms aimed at further reducing the growth of health care spending – a major driver of long-term deficits. The President opposes any plan that would simply shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable by undermining Medicare and Medicaid. Building on the foundation of the historic deficit reduction achieved through the Affordable Care Act, the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional $1 trillion in the subsequent decade. These savings complement the new patient safety initiative that could lower Medicare costs by another $50 billion over the next decade by providing better care. The President’s framework includes initiatives that will:
* Bend the long-term cost curve by setting a more ambitious target of holding Medicare cost growth per beneficiary to GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
* Make Medicaid more flexible, efficient and accountable without resorting to block granting the program, ending our partnership with States or reducing health care coverage for seniors in nursing homes, the most economically vulnerable and people with disabilities. Combined Medicaid savings of at least $100 billion over 10 years.
* Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower drug premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare. Combined Medicare savings of at least $200 billion over 10 years.
* Other mandatory spending: Outside of health care, comprehensive deficit reduction must include savings in other mandatory programs, including agricultural subsidies, the federal pension insurance system, and anti-fraud measures, while protecting and strengthening programs that serve low-income families and other vulnerable Americans. The President’s framework includes a target of $360 billion in savings from other mandatory programs by 2023.
* Tax reform: the President is calling for individual tax reform that closes loopholes and produces a system which is simpler, fairer and not rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it. The President supports the Fiscal Commission’s goal of reducing tax expenditures enough to both lower rates and lower the deficit.
* Social Security: The President does not believe that Social Security is in crisis nor is a driver of our near-term deficit problems. But, in the context of an aging population and a Social Security wage base that is declining as a share of overall earnings, Social Security faces long-term challenges that are better addressed sooner than later to ensure that the program remains for future generations the rock-solid benefit for older Americans that it has been for past generations. That is why the President supports bipartisan efforts to strengthen Social Security for the long haul. These efforts should be guided by several principles, including strengthening the program and not privatizing it, improving retirement security for the vulnerable while protecting people with disabilities and current beneficiaries, and not slashing benefits for future generations."
See further details at website:
FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility | The White House
No, I asked for a Democrcat who's a member of the Socialist Party.You asked for an example of a Democrat who's a socialist who ran as a Democrat. That you don't address your own question means again... you don't want to answer. More dishonesty? I'm surprised [/sarc]
Creating a strawman so you can beat it up doesn't help your position. I never said because it's a political party in Florida means it's applicable everywhere, I said that the Tea Party can register as a political party in every state, just like they did in Florida. :roll:The Tea Party isn't a political party... did you miss that the first two times when I first stated it, then proved it? Oh that's right, a Florida Democrat registered the Tea Party as a 3rd party and therefore, that makes it applicable everywhere. :lamo
Hmm, but weren't you saying those aren't real "Tea Partiers," that they're really Democrats. So the only Tea Partiers in the entire country with stones to run as Tea Partiers are in one state and they're former Democrats? Is that right?And let's get back to the point of all this... you asked, basically, why doesn't the Tea Party have the balls to run as a Tea Party. You implied that they have to disguise themselves as Republicans. You answered your own question and didn't even know it. Since you pointed out the Tea Party in Florida registered as a 3rd party - they ARE running as a 3rd party to Republicans in Florida.
Florida Tea Party
So locally it's happening in Florida.
No, I asked for a Democrcat who's a member of the Socialist Party.
Of course it was a dodge, it was a nonsensical answer you gave to my post. It's quit possible I know something you don't. Debt is a function of two things: spending and income. So you need to show where all of the debt incurred since he became president is spending.I have nothing to dodge... the buck stops with Obama just as it stops with every other President. What's a dodge is you making some Obama exception by continuing to make excuses. That's called BS spin, especially when the Progressive faithful make every excuse in the book so Mr. Obama doesn't look bad.
Already provided - but keep asking, even though it's a weak way to avoid answering.No, I asked for a Democrcat who's a member of the Socialist Party.
So you admit the Tea Party isn't a political party. Excellent!Creating a strawman so you can beat it up doesn't help your position. I never said because it's a political party in Florida means it's applicable everywhere, I said that the Tea Party can register as a political party in every state, just like they did in Florida.
I never said any such thing... I believe I posted a correction to your misinformation that Frank O'Neal was a Republican and as a by product, showed that Fran O'Neal (a Democrat) started the Tea Party movement (or one of them) in Florida. Let me educate you: The Tea Party around the country are separate and independent. There is no centralized management or party leadership. Democrats, Independents and Republicans all are part of the Tea Party ... also called Diversification.Hmm, but weren't you saying those aren't real "Tea Partiers," that they're really Democrats. So the only Tea Partiers in the entire country with stones to run as Tea Partiers are in one state and they're former Democrats? Is that right?
To be frank, it's difficult to answer your posts as all of them tend to be nonsensical.... and it's very difficult to bring a logical, methodical discussion normally.Of course it was a dodge, it was a nonsensical answer you gave to my post.
I'm sure you do, whether or not it's relevant or not is the question.It's quit possible I know something you don't.
That's a strawman, as I've never claimed all the debt incurred from one President. What I have said in various threads is that this President has taken the GW Bush spending and turned it up 2 notches and in many ways has extended the spending spree beyond the TARP level into the stupidity level. Given this economic 2 1/2 years his spending isn't just reckless as it normally would be, it's downright dangerous. The obligated debt of the United States is (depending on who and what sources provide it) between 50 Trillion and 62 Trillion dollars. That's money already spent.Debt is a function of two things: spending and income. So you need to show where all of the debt incurred since he became president is spending.
They buy it because those nations still have confidence that America can pay it back, and if we cannot then provide other resources, agreements, treatises, etc., to make up the difference.Also, if the debt was as bad as conservatives say it is, how come nations buy our debt at historically low interest rates?
amazing how you don't actually respond to what's written, but think that you have posted a point. we aren't saying it's wrong of him to cut Defense. we are saying it's wrong of him to want to claim credit for cutting spending we were never going to engage in.
No, I asked for a Democrcat who's a member of the Socialist Party.
This is not a strawman, Republicans, conservatives and YOU are blaming Obama for the $4 trillion added to the debt since he became president. Obama had the Stimulus and troop surge in Afghanistan, so where are the two notches you speak of????That's a strawman, as I've never claimed all the debt incurred from one President. What I have said in various threads is that this President has taken the GW Bush spending and turned it up 2 notches and in many ways has extended the spending spree beyond the TARP level into the stupidity level. Given this economic 2 1/2 years his spending isn't just reckless as it normally would be, it's downright dangerous. The obligated debt of the United States is (depending on who and what sources provide it) between 50 Trillion and 62 Trillion dollars. That's money already spent.
The fact that tea party types have to run as a Republican rather than honestly build a true political party and call it the Tea Party, is simply evidence of how disingenuous they are and how they only want short term power and have no real interest in building a real political party. I would say the same for libertarians like both Pauls who despite their status and the official pin-up boys for libertarianism, run as Republicans. I guess a run on the Libertarian ticket for President and getting his clocked cleaned taught Ron Paul the lesson of his life.
You're right, it's a vast generalization applied to anyone who calls themselves a Conservative or Republican. That's MUCH better than a strawman. :lamoThis is not a strawman, Republicans, conservatives and YOU are blaming Obama for the $4 trillion added to the debt since he became president.
Let's see list the Obama Spend-O Rama is the challenge huh? Okay...Obama had the Stimulus and troop surge in Afghanistan, so where are the two notches you speak of????
Majorities of Americans see both President Obama and congressional Republicans as not willing enough to compromise in their budget negotiations,
No, you provided a list of Democrats whose names appeared on a list on Democratic Socialists of America (no evidence they are or were even members of that organization). I asked you to name Democrats who are members of the Socialist Party. Do you know the difference between Democratic Socialists of America and the Socialist Party? Also, the list you gave is titled, "Members of the Progressive Caucus." That doesn't make them Socialist.Already provided - but keep asking, even though it's a weak way to avoid answering.
It is in Florida.So you admit the Tea Party isn't a political party. Excellent!
Really? Then who posted this to me ...Hmm, but weren't you saying those aren't real "Tea Partiers," that they're really Democrats.
I never said any such thing...
I said Republicans and conservative, I never said all of them. :wink:You're right, it's a vast generalization applied to anyone who calls themselves a Conservative or Republican. That's MUCH better than a strawman. :lamo
I still never claimed that. You might, just might want to stop treating everyone you don't agree with the same and start treating them as individuals. Even though YOU may live up to the progressive liberal ideal and stereotype, doesn't mean all Republicans and Conservatives are like you. Just a tip there for ya. :wink:
Let's see list the Obama Spend-O Rama is the challenge huh? Okay...
TALF/PPIP
Obama Care
Continuing Afghanistan, Iraq and opening up a 3rd "non-hostile" war with Libya
Thier lack of interest organizing as an actual political party shows they have no interest in building a political party.
Wow.....
:slow clap:
That's some breath taking logic there. Did you know the people who score the most points in football win the game? Are you related to John Madden?
Next you're going to tell me that the Anti-War Movement wasn't interested in pushing a broad political ideology but were simply for pushing anti-war policy. Your insight is astounding.
When will the GOP/Tea Party wise up?
Democrats only know one thing - how to spend like there's no tomorrow. 2012 will have Obama spending this country into slavery to China. They can't help themselves. While demonizing the Tea Party as whatever you last saw on MSNBC (I think you've been channeling Ed ****z or possibly Mancow's talking points), the reality is the Tea Party pushing for fiscal responsibility which flys in the face of spend spend spend progressive liberal hacks. 2012 with Obama killing off this country might be a good thing... perhaps that will see progressive liberalism die a long slow painful death as it so deserves. Best bury decomposing **** instead of having it stink up the place when it all does crash. Progressive dumbasses.
Actually it shows two very apparent truths that seemed to escape you - perhaps intentionally , perhaps because you have willful blinders on about them.
1) they are now and always have been Republicans
2) they would no more start a third party to hurt their precious Republicans than they would vote Democratic
I just wish they would drop the "party" from their name as its a gross lie. Is there any other political movement called a party in politics that is not a political party?
Actually it shows two very apparent truths that seemed to escape you - perhaps intentionally , perhaps because you have willful blinders on about them.
1) they are now and always have been Republicans
2) they would no more start a third party to hurt their precious Republicans than they would vote Democratic
I just wish they would drop the "party" from their name as its a gross lie.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?