Do Conservatives Want the Deficit Committee to Succeed? (enemy, solutions, parties)

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

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.

Geithner: Obama And Boehner Still Negotiating Grand Bargain

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Well was it well spent money or not. Yes or no.

So you can't answer my simple question that I posted to start this thread?

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

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.

I support a balanced budget amendment, just not the tea party/Republican version.

[C.C]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

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?

Uh, wasn't that "win" already handed to obama by his own Simpson/Bowles deficit reduction commission? He's the one who laughed it off and promptly proposed a budget with more trillions of new spending. How exactly does his desire for another year of unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts fit into this "grand bargain" of $4T in deficit reduction???

[mohawkx]

I stand corrected. It was 4 trillion not 4 billion. But that would have meant that Obama could have taken credit for something and the right wing who keeps the republican party on a leash would never allow that to happen. It would set the fascist timetable back at least 4 years.

[Backspace]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Most Republicans are conservatives and most conservatives are Republicans or vote Republican.

According to who? You?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

In a deep recession, cutting help to those who lost their job will make the recession worse. The deficit isn't the cause of our bad economy, it is a result.

Are you suggest that Obama gave each of the 7 Million unemployed people $571,428 in cash?

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

When Obama took office, he didn't inherit a recession and trillion dollar deficit?

Technically no, and you're obfuscating as usual.

The recession began in the 4th Quarter 2008, but I'm the only one who knew that. I said in July 2008 a recession would begin 4th Quarter (I posted that here on C-D).

No one knew we were in a recession until the 2nd Quarter of 2009, after they crunched all the numbers.

Whether or not Obama inherited a "trillion dollar deficit" is irrelevant.

The 2009 Budget was proposed in February 2009, and Obama signed off on it in March 2009.

So he created a "trillion dollar deficit" as one of his first official acts.

In 2010, he then created another "trillion dollar deficit."

In 2011, he signed off and approved another "trillion dollar deficit."

All told, he, and he alone, approved of the addition of $4.13 TRILLION to the National Debt, leading to the recent "debt-crisis."

According to you, Obama took that $4.13 TRILLION and gave $571,428 to each of the 7 Million unemployed, because he was helping those who lost their jobs.

If Obama didn't give $571,428 in cash to the 7 Million unemployed then where did he spend the money?

Altogether, Obama's 3 budgets spent $12 TRILLION and the only thing you got was $500 Billion increase in your GDP. It doesn't take an Harvard graduate to figure out that a spending at a ratio of 24:1 is going to bankrupt you in no time

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

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.

Once again, you forgot the part about it being $4 TRILLION over 10 years and starting in 2013. Those are minor details that you always intentionally omit like a good propagandist.

Again, it doesn't take an Harvard graduate to figure that $4 TRILLION over 10 years is only $4 Billion per year.

Over the same period of time, your National Debt will still increase by at least $10 TRILLION ($11.5 TRILLION if we add in the 2012 Budget Deficit that Obama did not want to include).

That would put your National Debt at $26 TRILLION (not including accrued interest over that period) and where is your GDP going to be? You'll be damn lucky if your GDP is $16 TRILLION 10 years from now.

And who is going to buy all of this debt? You think the rest of the world is going to bankrupt their countries to buy your debt? Think again. There's only 2 dozen countries that can buy your debt, and they aren't going to be buying if your credit rating continues to decline, and it will as your National Debt exceeds your GDP.

Your debt crisis isn't even over yet. You still have to sell $1.5 TRILLION in securities to get the cash to pay off what you owe.

[mohawkx]

First off, 4 trillion over 10 years is 400 billion a year. Second, When Bush came in in 2000, the Nat Debt was 5.6 trillion. When he handed the keys to the ship of state to Obama, it stood at 10.4 trillion. Plus the fact that he pre approved 1 trillion in tarp spending prior to leaving office just to keep the nation from default and it took another 1 trillion just to keep the world economy from defaulting. So when you throw numbers around, bring in all the numbers.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Geithner: Obama And Boehner Still Negotiating Grand Bargain

Well, now I see where you are getting all the crap, the old I didn't get my taxes all paid because i used Turbo-Tax, Geithner.

Ok that article had a new number $3 trillion that I had never seen. I found very little about how Obama blew that grand deals tax raises. You can learn a bit about this from this link.

The folly in Obama's 'grand bargain' - SFGate

If this isn't good enough for you I can suggest one from Red State written the same day. Obama shot that deal by asking for $400 billion more than they had agreed on. I know nobody who knows why he did that. I think his string pullers were wanting it blown so they could use it for the campaign.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

I support a balanced budget amendment, just not the tea party/Republican version.

What could a balanced budget amendment contain that would look good to Harry Reid? He doesn't even like budgets so a balanced one would tear the top of his socialistic head off.