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 hear attacks from conservatives, and some liberals, but mostly conservatives about the deficit committee. If the committee was able to go past the 1.5 trillion in deficit cutting they are suppose to get and lets say they strike a grand bargain that comes up with 4 trillion in deficit reductions, would conservatives support the package? I ask that because it would allow Obama to campaign on cutting the deficit and would likely result in the USA getting a credit upgrade. Would conservatives support a win for the USA if it means that Obama can claim a win on deficit reduction?
When Obama took office, he didn't inherit a recession and trillion dollar deficit?
Also, you are avoiding my original question and just trying to deflect.
I guess I was trying to find out how all that money and all those jobs lost after it was voted in by the Congress and signed into law by the President, could be thought of as good expenditure. Do you know, other than Bush didn't spend any of it?
I guess I was trying to find out how all that money and all those jobs lost after it was voted in by the Congress and signed into law by the President, could be thought of as good expenditure. Do you know, other than Bush didn't spend any of it?
If that "thought" was applied to every committee, then every member of Congress would also need to be on every committee.
Logic fail on Gingrich's part.
Nice try but the method I suggested that uses all those committees in each house of Congress is the method that is called for in rules in both houses. This supercommittee idea stinks on ice, as good old Glenn would say.
You have to know that the committees in Congress do all the real work and then each house debates each bill on the floor. Your so great method has just wiped out the need for any committee work in Congress and allowed 12 appointed people to do the job and they all have committees to serve on in addition to the super one.
BTW, how many Congressional committees served on the writing of Obamacare? How about Stimulus? Cash for Clunkers? Damnit the fact that the Dems back then had complete control did nothing to take away the need for committees to work as majority and minority groups to settle things.
Seriously, I want to know what committees worked on the writing of Obamacare. I say not one and no debate was held on any part of the voting.
It wasn't 4 billion, it was 4 trillion. Obama and Boehner were in agreement for 4 trillion in deficit reductions, but the tea party balked and forced Boehner to go with the smaller 2 trillion package.
I think you are confused on this one. That talk about $4 trillion seems to be something that the media failed to report. I heard that Boehner and Obama had agreed on an amount and that then Obama had asked to have it doubled and that was the end of the agreement.
Please shoot me some links about the $4 trillion deal you like to talk about.
Most Republicans are conservatives and most conservatives are Republicans or vote Republican.
A lot libertarians vote for Republicans because voting for a Libertarian candidate would split the conservative vote and we could end up with someone like Bill Clinton again. No thanks!
As far as these pretend someday cuts go, having a committee to blame them on is probably even more politically convenient than having the option of never implementing their suggestions and being able to once again kick the can up the road while continuing to spend, spend spend!
The only real spending cuts are the ones which are implemented now to reduce present day spending. Reductions of projected increases do not fulfill this requirement since spending still increases.
The only reason a committee needs to be appointed is to buy time and make it appear that something is being done when, in fact, the entire process is a ruse.
I hear attacks from conservatives, and some liberals, but mostly conservatives about the deficit committee. If the committee was able to go past the 1.5 trillion in deficit cutting they are suppose to get and lets say they strike a grand bargain that comes up with 4 trillion in deficit reductions, would conservatives support the package? I ask that because it would allow Obama to campaign on cutting the deficit and would likely result in the USA getting a credit upgrade. Would conservatives support a win for the USA if it means that Obama can claim a win on deficit reduction?
Yes. Keep in mind, that the mission of the "deficit reduction committee" is to reduce the deficit. With the panel they have placed, they will never reduce the deficit.
What do we need? A Constitutional balanced budget amendment. Lawmakers just cannot, and never will, be able to control thier wild spending habits.
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.
