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.
isn't it insane that balancing the budget is considered the extreme position? I understand that the democrats wont give in on obamacare but continuing with budgets that add enormous amounts of debt needs to be challenged. the moderate position should be a balanced budget.
under GWB, the debt ceiling was raised 7 times, an average of 9.6% each time, lasting an average of 11 months each time. Under Obama, it's been raised 7 times, an average of 5.8% each time, lasting an average of 7 months. To assume that balancing the budget isn't something Democrats would like to do is what's insane. You just don't like how they would achieve it. When the tea baggers learn how to do basic math, then we can consider talking about their views.
that question didn't happen in a vacuum. it happened after a deal was made where we got a whole bunch of tax increases and almost no cuts. so it was important to see some actual cuts before agreeing to more tax increases. every negotiation now has become such a big competition to see who wins that after Obama "won" and got tax increases with no cuts, it pissed people off and they wouldn't agree to increases. the perception was, the dems got their tax increases last negotiation, now its our turn to get some cuts. but the republicans learned that the dems strategy is to never give the cuts, just try to trick the American people into believing cuts will come and only get increased taxes. look at simpson bowles, a bipartisan plan to reduce that deficit. a lot of tea party people are willing to accept that deal as a starting point to get to a real compromise between both sides but Obama wiped his butt with it. the dems have no interest in any form of compromise.
oh and due to the dishonesty of all parties in how they explained the deal to the public, the republican people are led to believe they are getting a decent deal only to find out afterwards that it was a bad deal and they totally lost. so there is no trust; you feel if you give in on anything you will see that later you got nothing.
can you please define the "whole bunch of tax increases" and the "almost no cuts" with actual numbers?
This is the whole math thing I was talking about. Stop throwing out general statements and back it up with the actual numbers.
under GWB, the debt ceiling was raised 7 times, an average of 9.6% each time, lasting an average of 11 months each time. Under Obama, it's been raised 7 times, an average of 5.8% each time, lasting an average of 7 months. To assume that balancing the budget isn't something Democrats would like to do is what's insane. You just don't like how they would achieve it. When the tea baggers learn how to do basic math, then we can consider talking about their views.
what does GWB have to do with anything? barack Obama is on a pace to rack up as much debt as all the presidents before him combined. gwb added debt, too much debt. but compared to barack Obama, bush is a total amateur.
balancing the budget is something that the democrats have not come anywhere close to addressing. they haven't presented anything to that end. im making an assumption based on a total lack of any evidence of what you are saying.
This is officially the funniest things I've ever read. I dont think I'll ever watch another comedian again, because nothing can ever top this.
Please stop quoting the Captain. I've had him on my ignore list ever since his nonsense about hurricanes don't hit NJ.
Just because he is constantly saying stupid stuff is no reason to quote him.
I can't get away from this guy.
Screw the debt! If I was president I would just sign a one line statement that there is no debt, all erased, start from GO again, collect $200. Done. It's all money for us anyway. We don't owe anyone overseas "nuffin".
balancing the budget is something that the democrats have not come anywhere close to addressing. they haven't presented anything to that end. im making an assumption based on a total lack of any evidence of what you are saying.
you are one of those people that always cries for numbers but rarely presents them (but believes that everything he said is proven fact so he doesn't need numbers).
here you go:
It was the American taxpayer relief act of 2012. here is the link to Wikipedia and quotes of the pertinent numbers:
"Revenue provisions would add a total of $3,638 billion to the deficits for the 2013-2022 period, an average of $364 billion per year."
"Spending provisions would add $332 billion to the deficit for the 2013-2022 period, an average of $33 billion per year."
we can look through it in more detail, but I bet the tax increases happen in the beginning and will happen while the spending cuts (less that 1/10th of the tax increases) would be pushed further in the future and will never be realized.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 10-17-2013 at 10:58 AM..
barack Obama is on a pace to rack up as much debt as all the presidents before him combined. gwb added debt, too much debt. but compared to barack Obama, bush is a total amateur.
balancing the budget is something that the democrats have not come anywhere close to addressing. they haven't presented anything to that end. im making an assumption based on a total lack of any evidence of what you are saying.
Our dear "Captain", whom I suspect is actually a small private, is apparently delusional, as well as a budding comedian.
According to Forbes magazine, which is assuredly conservative, Obama has actually added less to the debt than any POTUS since Eisenhower.
As the article states, Ronnie Reagan--who was actually a much more prodigious spender than the current POTUS--would most likely tip his hat to Obama in regard to his thrifty ways.
Our dear "Captain", whom I suspect is actually a small private, is apparently delusional, as well as a budding comedian.
According to Forbes magazine, which is assuredly conservative, Obama has actually added less to the debt than any POTUS since Eisenhower.
As the article states, Ronnie Reagan--who was actually a much more prodigious spender than the current POTUS--would most likely tip his hat to Obama in regard to his thrifty ways.
hahahahahaahahahaha so the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" that passed with 0 republicans in the house and only a few republicans in the senate and signed by Obama shouldn't be counted as Obama spending??
isn't it insane that balancing the budget is considered the extreme position? I understand that the democrats wont give in on obamacare but continuing with budgets that add enormous amounts of debt needs to be challenged. the moderate position should be a balanced budget.
Yeah, why wouldn't a president decide to damage his biggest legislative achievement? So anti-American.
We've had a handful of balanced budgets since WWII. Last one under Clinton.
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.
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.
I've had him on my ignore list ever since his nonsense about hurricanes don't hit NJ. 
