Magox

I understand what you are saying, but there are many people that are on welfare in a transitory basis. From my view, if you are there in the short-term, I don't believe you should be mandated to perform these tasks, but if it's someone who is consistently there, then I have no problem with this.

The more I think about this signing, the more I am believing he was signed to fill a specific role, which was to cover TE's. I don't believe he will be an every down LB, but I can envision him having an important role to what this defense will be looking to accomplish moving forward.

Not only should there be drug testing, but there should be strings attached to welfare. There should be a job re training program offered by the government to help place them into areas of where demand for jobs is expected to be, if they willfully decide to not participate, then benefits should be cut.

I don't see a deal getting done. If it did, it would need a good mixture of the two parties to vote for it. It would be a rare instance of having both parties with roughly the same amount of votes from each side, voting on the measure. Real Fiscal conservative hawks like Coburn would probably vote for it, providing enough cover to pick some conservative votes off. However, I just don't see enough Liberals voting on reforming the entitlements, unless Obama really puts the pressure on them. In any case, if we did do a "grand bargain" it would probably look like that.

They are both markers. The house set theirs, and the Democrats will soon do the same. From there, negotiations begin. That's how it works. Unfortunately, the gulf between the two, from my perspective is too large. So I don't see anything getting done. If a deal does get done, it will look something like this: 1) Some Revenues through the closing of loopholes etc. Most likely maxed out at no more than $500B 2) Reforming the entitlements. Chained CPI, means testing and eliminating "waste" 3) Some Defense budget cuts 4) Some sort of modest welfare reform Obamacare and Medicaid will go unscathed.

I disagree... Let's face it, both sides won't get what they want, the likely hood of a grand bargain happening is pretty remote. One side is pretty far to the right, the other side is simply retarded. Mars, Venus

This really isn't a difficult argument to make. This is a men are from Mars and women are from Venus case here. You believe his budget is ridiculous. Ok, fine I accept that. I believe that the Senate Democrats deficit reduction package of an additional trillion dollars of new taxes, 100B of new stimulus spending, and not addressing and reforming the Entitlements, which any sane rational person agrees is the main driver of our debt moving forward, is even more ridiculous. In other words, liberals aren't serious about reducing the Debt.

You do know that you are talking to a troll?

What the hell are you talking about? You aren't making any sense, all this is is a bunch of gibberish. We are talking about the progressivity of the US tax code. Who cares that they make more? We are talking about the progressiveness of the US tax code. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have been paying a higher % of their income than the bottom 50% and that number is continuing to climb. Seriously, are you this dense that you don't understand? Did you check out the link? If you were talking about the aggregate total, then you would have a point, of course they pay more because they make more. But that isn't what we are talking about. Seriously, I don't get how you don't understand this point. Also to your second point, again more gibberish. Fine, go back to before the recession, check out the numbers from 2001-2007... The findings are the same. It's right there, anyone who decides to click on the link will see it for themselves, the US tax code is becoming more progressive by the day. I guess this is how it is like to talk to a brick wall.

Nope, wrong again. That's not what I'm claiming. Look at the tax data I provided. The % that the "rich" are paying is higher relative to the bottom 50%, as a percentage. I'm not talking just about the total % of total revenues collected, but what they are paying as a % relative to the bottom 50%. Back in 1980, the top 1% paid 600% higher than the bottom 50%, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. Now, that number has soared to 1300% higher than the bottom 50%. Check the data Here is a recap of post #25 in this thread http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0

That was freaking hilarious.

It's a waste of time for you because you don't have any substance behind what you say. And when asked to defend your comments, you deflect, and when you do say something, all you come up with is empty platitudes and talking points. Now that you've been debunked on your claim about the tax code, which proved what you said was a crock of ****. Explain to us in detail how the tax code is allowing more money to "flow to the top"? Keep in mind, here are the facts: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0 That is data compiled from the IRS Enough of the vapid talking points, Now back up what you say with factual data

That's a great answer. I'm convinced.

It's right there for everyone to see. The progressivity (sp)? of the US tax code has increased in virtually every metric you can possibly conclude from the data collected by the IRS.

You are one slow thinking puppy. No one disputes that, the point is that raising revenues by a trillion dollars, $100B in added stimulus spending and not reforming the entitlement programs is also a non starter. Does everything need to be spelled out to you? I would also like to hear this explanation, but without the platitudes and parroted talking points.

The net aggregate income inequality has increased, but it has very very little to do with the tax code. Much more so with Globalization. The progressiveness of the US tax code has increased virtually every year since 1980, according to data from the IRS. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have not only increased the aggregate amount of total taxes paid, which is to be expected, but have paid more as a % of revenues collected in the U.S and have paid a higher % of their income to taxes relative to the bottom 50%. In other words, the tax code has almost nothing to do with this development, and the numbers are here for everyone to see. Which debunks what the professor claims regarding US tax policy contributing to the aggregate income inequality. http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Then you clearly don't understand the political realities yourself.

Yes, and so is the senate democrats budget that includes a trillion dollars in new revenues and additional 100 Billion in stimulus spending. Which of course has no chance of ever becoming law. It's that simple.

It's natural that what Paul Ryan envisions is something that wouldn't make sense to you. You are way to the left and his budget is way to the right.

What are you? A retard? We're talking about this numbskull

Sure, I'd agree that there could of been a better political choice, such as Rubio... But that's not what we were talking about.

There is a difference between drag and what did he add? Wisconsin is a historically blue state, all he added to the ticket there was a few points... So the better way to have phrased would have been, "Ryan didn't add anything to the ticket" Instead what was said was " i'm not sure ryan was as big of a mistake as palin but it was close" Only a loony leftist would agree with this statement. So I'm assuming you do?

Do you want me to post to you the exit poll data? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57546031/early-exit-poll-60-percent-say-economy-top-issue/ Which ONE of these four issues is the most important facing the country? (CHECK ONLY ONE) Total Obama Romney 5% 56% 33% Federal budget deficit 15% 32% 66% The economy 59% 47% 51% http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll In other words, it wasn't the vision why they voted for Obama, it was that they successfully portrayed him as an out of touch, aristocratic, tax cheating, war on womening corporate fat cat. Also, no one in their right mind agrees with you in regards to Paul Ryan being a drag on the ticket. No one.

Wow! "keep letting the rich bank accounts siphon a bigger and bigger chunk of available money from everybody else." This totally disregards facts. Which doesn't surprise me coming from the source. According to the tax foundation which compiled data directly from the IRS, the average rate paid by the top 1% in 2008 paid Adjusted Gross Income of 20% of the total revenues collected. In 1980, the top 1% paid 8.46% of total revenues collected. Since 1980, the total share of revenues from the top 1% has been steadily increasing, with the exceptions of down years caused by recessions. Also, speaking of the progressivity of the US tax code, the top 1% pay after deductions 24.01%, the bottom 50% pay 1.85%. As income rises, the level of taxes paid as a percentage increases. Also at the bottom of the page, if you look at the progressiveness of the tax code, you will see that ever since 1980, the US tax code has steadily gotten more progressive. In 1980 the top 1% paid a rate of 34.47%... The bottom 50% paid a rate of 6.1%, which means that the 1% paid a little less than 600% higher rates than the bottom 50%. In 2009, the top 1% paid a rate of 24.28% and the bottom 50% paid a rate of 1.85%, which means that the 1% paid more than 1300% higher rates than the bottom 50%. In other words the US tax code has exponentially increased the progressiveness of taxes paid. http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0 Read it! Which means that you are totally full of ****, and once again just shows that you are talking out of your ass. Also, "siphoning" the "available money"??? What the !@#$ does that mean? Who's money is it? and from where are they siphoning it from? You are right about one thing, it is like a mental disease.

Yes, because reforming the entitlements is a really popular poll tested thing to do.