U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2013, 05:25 AM
 
Location: North America
19,634 posts, read 12,401,975 times
Reputation: 8282

Advertisements

Proof positive that neither side is serious about passing a budget. Both sides are presenting budgets they KNOW have no chance of passing. Why? Because finger pointing has become a way of life in Washington.

Budget plans or works of fiction?

Democrats and Republicans have put together their dream budgets political documents that are more like wish lists than usable road maps for the future of government spending.

Both have no chance of becoming law, but they do help explain the impasse over spending and debt in Washington.


Read more: Budget plans or works of fiction? - David Nather - POLITICO.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2013, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,906 posts, read 4,402,951 times
Reputation: 2739
Not only will either pass but the bills can not be meshed together for compromise. It is gridlock because the {R}s will not raise more taxes and the {D}s will not put entitlement programs on the table. This is the same song and dance that is been going on for over 4 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 05:58 AM
 
Location: North America
19,634 posts, read 12,401,975 times
Reputation: 8282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
Not only will either pass but the bills can not be meshed together for compromise. It is gridlock because the {R}s will not raise more taxes and the {D}s will not put entitlement programs on the table. This is the same song and dance that is been going on for over 4 years.

You know, one thing about Clinton. The guy had the morals of a rabbit, but he could work with both sides of Congress and get stuff done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 06:02 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,229 posts, read 33,618,596 times
Reputation: 14163
It does not cut spending one dime.

None of it does.

Everything that has been proposed, still adds trillions of dollars to the national debt and would run deficits for years to come. America faces a crisis and we have to balance our budget now, not ten or 20 years down the road



Maybe we should be looking more seriously at the budget proposed by yet another Paul, Senator Rand Paul, whose proposed budget would be balanced in 5 years, instead of between the years 2060 - 2080.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,906 posts, read 4,402,951 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
You know, one thing about Clinton. The guy had the morals of a rabbit, but he could work with both sides of Congress and get stuff done.
I think Obama has had the same opportunity but it passed him by, the Simpson/Bowles commission could have been a good starting point. It had good balance of things the parties like/dislike and had potential to be hammered out into a bill that could pass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,906 posts, read 4,402,951 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
It does not cut spending one dime.

None of it does.

Everything that has been proposed, still adds trillions of dollars to the national debt and would run deficits for years to come. America faces a crisis and we have to balance our budget now, not ten or 20 years down the road



Maybe we should be looking more seriously at the budget proposed by yet another Paul, Senator Rand Paul, whose proposed budget would be balanced in 5 years, instead of between the years 2060 - 2080.
Looking at the current political landscape does it have a snow balls chance in hell of passing? If by miracle it did would Obama sign it? Most likely your answers are no, they only solution I see is there is going to have to be some horse trading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 15,275,207 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
It does not cut spending one dime.

None of it does.

Everything that has been proposed, still adds trillions of dollars to the national debt and would run deficits for years to come. America faces a crisis and we have to balance our budget now, not ten or 20 years down the road



Maybe we should be looking more seriously at the budget proposed by yet another Paul, Senator Rand Paul, whose proposed budget would be balanced in 5 years, instead of between the years 2060 - 2080.

Since spending is not the problem, why would it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 06:52 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,229 posts, read 33,618,596 times
Reputation: 14163
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Since spending is not the problem, why would it?


You don't rack up more debt & deficits, by not having a spending problem.


I was born on a Friday, but it wasn't last Friday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 06:58 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,229 posts, read 33,618,596 times
Reputation: 14163
Each time there has been a substantial recovery, taxes were lowered and government spending was cut.

Harding did it to get us out of the depression, Wilson created
IKE did it to get us out of the still looming debt, that was going to prolong FDR's depression, Truman had no clue how to fix.


Both leaders and not talkers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 07:02 AM
 
4,414 posts, read 3,348,150 times
Reputation: 2321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
I think Obama has had the same opportunity but it passed him by, the Simpson/Bowles commission could have been a good starting point. It had good balance of things the parties like/dislike and had potential to be hammered out into a bill that could pass.
Problem is that compromise now means giving the other side 100% of what they want. I think the President would have had to sign off on a plan based upon the Simpson-Bowels Commission, even if he didn't want to, if the Republicans had approved it. But it didn't kill Obamacare or turn Medicare into a voucher giveaway to healthcare companies so it was dead on arrival. They could have forced the President's hand, but that wouldn't have given them everything they wanted. What a wasted opportunity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top