Why All the Balanced Budget Rhetoric Constantly from the GOP? (Congress, generations)
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.
There will never be any kind of meaningful budget reform because that is not what the elite who run the country want.
Their agenda is to break the bank. They need to create a crisis in order to reorganize the US into their plan for globalization. Do any of you really believe that Washington is working in the best interest of the American people?
Is there really someone out there that naive?
The idea is to balance the budget over a period of 10 years or so. What the GOP says that doesn't make sense is that they want to lower tax revenue, while screaming budget. Its like having a job making 100000 a year, you're a million dollars in debt, then voluntarily taking a 20000 dollar pay cut.
More people working generates more tax revenue. That is the only way out of it. Maybe Obama's job council has some new ideas? Oh wait they were disbanded after not meeting for six months. Where are the jobs?? Regulated away.
I am in favor of cutting the budget. I am in favor of both reducing spending gradually and increasing some taxes gradually.
What makes me think the GOP is full of nutcases is when I hear people like Marco Rubio constantly holler about "balancing the budget". Balancing the budget, right now, would require a combination of a trillion dollars in budget cuts and tax hikes. If that were done immediately, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you a simple truth. It will throw this country back into the recession that we are struggling to climb out of. In fact, unemployment would probably increase to 15% according to the index its currently measured on.
Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services and the private sector is in no shape to make up what government would instantly stop purchasing. The only net result that could flow from that would be record numbers of firms going out of business and a record number of unemployment claims.
I don't dispute the essential truth that--over time--spending has to be cut and that borrowing by government is a problem. But it can't be done over night and anyone who think it can be without a near catastrophic effect on the economy, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Rubio only shows his ignorance and utter partisanship by saying the President ought to do this. I wouldn't vote for this clown to be dogcatcher.
Anyone with a view like yours probably wouldn't vote for any Republican. BTW, no one is saying balance the budget like today, it is simply an attempt to proceed toward a balanced buget or at least a budget, which it appears, if you have paid much attention, Obama doesn't seem very interested in. Did I miss something, did Rubio say Obama should have a balanced budget by next month? What did he really say?
Wasn't ti democrats who not long ago who procliamed Clinton balacnig te budget and bring deficit inot sustianable levels i his budget deal with Gingrich?I beleive t was. Nowe they see repul;bicna have gave tax increase with putting up enuhg fiht to save their base and see the discusiion shifti g to cuts with Obama not knowig what to do to save his base.Poltics is not always what it seems and is still the art of compromise.
I am in favor of cutting the budget. I am in favor of both reducing spending gradually and increasing some taxes gradually.
What makes me think the GOP is full of nutcases is when I hear people like Marco Rubio constantly holler about "balancing the budget". Balancing the budget, right now, would require a combination of a trillion dollars in budget cuts and tax hikes. If that were done immediately, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you a simple truth. It will throw this country back into the recession that we are struggling to climb out of. In fact, unemployment would probably increase to 15% according to the index its currently measured on.
Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services and the private sector is in no shape to make up what government would instantly stop purchasing. The only net result that could flow from that would be record numbers of firms going out of business and a record number of unemployment claims.
I don't dispute the essential truth that--over time--spending has to be cut and that borrowing by government is a problem. But it can't be done over night and anyone who think it can be without a near catastrophic effect on the economy, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Rubio only shows his ignorance and utter partisanship by saying the President ought to do this. I wouldn't vote for this clown to be dogcatcher.
The spending increases didn't happen gradually over time. Obama raised the spending through the stimulus. But instead of that being simply a one-shot deal, it increased the baseline spending so that now we are spending hundreds of billions more every year than we used to. Cutting the spending is simply cutting the stimulus. It's just going back to where we were a couple years ago. It's not going back to 1950.
I believe in 2009 Harry Reid called it a "draconian cut" to simply go back to 2008 spending.
The conservative desire to balance the budget isn't to balance it today, it is to balance it over time. The problem with the Democrats is that they won't commit to balancing it ever. It's not that Republicans want to balance it now and Democrats want to balance it later. It's that Republicans want to balance it later and Democrats want to balance it never.
I am in favor of cutting the budget. I am in favor of both reducing spending gradually and increasing some taxes gradually.
What makes me think the GOP is full of nutcases is when I hear people like Marco Rubio constantly holler about "balancing the budget". Balancing the budget, right now, would require a combination of a trillion dollars in budget cuts and tax hikes. If that were done immediately, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you a simple truth. It will throw this country back into the recession that we are struggling to climb out of. In fact, unemployment would probably increase to 15% according to the index its currently measured on.
Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services and the private sector is in no shape to make up what government would instantly stop purchasing. The only net result that could flow from that would be record numbers of firms going out of business and a record number of unemployment claims.
I don't dispute the essential truth that--over time--spending has to be cut and that borrowing by government is a problem. But it can't be done over night and anyone who think it can be without a near catastrophic effect on the economy, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Rubio only shows his ignorance and utter partisanship by saying the President ought to do this. I wouldn't vote for this clown to be dogcatcher.
"Balancing the budget, right now". did he call for 'right now"?
"Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services" Having worked for Uncle Sam I guarantee a 10 to 15% reduction across the board would NOT affect any goods and services that are needed.
I am in favor of cutting the budget. I am in favor of both reducing spending gradually and increasing some taxes gradually.
What makes me think the GOP is full of nutcases is when I hear people like Marco Rubio constantly holler about "balancing the budget". Balancing the budget, right now, would require a combination of a trillion dollars in budget cuts and tax hikes. If that were done immediately, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you a simple truth. It will throw this country back into the recession that we are struggling to climb out of. In fact, unemployment would probably increase to 15% according to the index its currently measured on.
Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services and the private sector is in no shape to make up what government would instantly stop purchasing. The only net result that could flow from that would be record numbers of firms going out of business and a record number of unemployment claims.
I don't dispute the essential truth that--over time--spending has to be cut and that borrowing by government is a problem. But it can't be done over night and anyone who think it can be without a near catastrophic effect on the economy, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Rubio only shows his ignorance and utter partisanship by saying the President ought to do this. I wouldn't vote for this clown to be dogcatcher.
The true nut cases are the ones who think we can keep running trillion dollar deficits and nothing bad is happening
The idea is to balance the budget over a period of 10 years or so. What the GOP says that doesn't make sense is that they want to lower tax revenue, while screaming budget. Its like having a job making 100000 a year, you're a million dollars in debt, then voluntarily taking a 20000 dollar pay cut.
"What the GOP says that doesn't make sense is that they want to lower tax revenue,"
Absolutely WRONG. Revenues are INCREASED when taxes are LOWERED. Look at history. Kennedy, Reagan and yes your hated W. Bush.
Why arbitrarily cut federal employees? Are you saying we don't have things for those employees to do? Do we have too many meat inspectors, airport security, FBI agents, etc.?
Why but the onus of balancing the budget on the backs of the workers by freezing salaries? That's a pay cut after inflation.
As usual the gross exaggeration and emotional hype. You could cut the budget 15% and NOT touch one of those jobs.
I notice you didn't mention any of those bureaucrats we always her about. Why not?
Maybe the fed is some things that are not any of their business and are state responsibilities, you know like schools and policemen etc.
What bothers me about the whole thing is how Republicans act like hypocrites on it. They keep saying we need to cut, cut, cut and balance, balance, balance. You would think that if they really want that, they will take any/all cuts available. We have had multiple chances to cut defense and the military and they keep voting to put those off and want to eliminate the cuts completely.
Your premise makes no sense. You make cuts AFTER looking each program and deciding if borrowing to pay for it is the worth it. Unlike many of the agencies of the gov't Defense IS in the CONSTITUTION.
This a couple of years old but, still the idea is the same.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
AND, NOW, IT'S 2010 -- 33 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"
A little over 33 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes -- the good old Federal bureaucracy!!
NOW, WE HAVE TURNED THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?
The Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request is $29.5 billion, an 11.8 percent or $3.1 billion increase from FY 2010
current appropriation levels.
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.
