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.
The Republicans already compromised and handed Obama huge tax increases in December. It's Obama's minions turn to put something on the table. How about some real, honest, year to year cuts in spending? Not the bogus "cuts in increases" crap we've been hearing about. Or the flat-out ballooning of spending proposed by the senate?
I'm hoping the Rs in the House grow some balls and say no to Obama for once.
How would saying no to Obama on a grand bargain that reduces the deficit achieve cuts in spending?
I came across a townhall column written by Dan Holler. He's basically saying that the GOP should avoid a grand bargain that greatly reduces the deficit because it would help Obama politically. What happened to country before party?
He's just saying that the Obama plan is to raise taxes, and the repubs should not go along with an Obama/Reid plan taxes go up, spending goes up, and we have more of the same, i.e. recession. In other words, don't let Obama pour honey in your ear, come up with a better plan of your own.
I did not see where he said to let the country suffer for political gain. Passing an Obama/Reid plan will cause the country to continue to suffer another four years of Obama's failed policies.
He's just saying that the Obama plan is to raise taxes, and the repubs should not go along with an Obama/Reid plan taxes go up, spending goes up, and we have more of the same, i.e. recession. In other words, don't let Obama pour honey in your ear, come up with a better plan of your own.
I did not see where he said to let the country suffer for political gain. Passing an Obama/Reid plan will cause the country to continue to suffer another four years of Obama's failed policies.
So by getting rid of spending in the tax code, which the GOP was just in favor of last year, that's raising taxes?
That never stopped the GOP before. When the GOP controlled Congress balanced the budget and gave us three years of surpluses in the late-1990s, it helped Clinton politically even though he opposed the GOP plan every step of the way. Apparently the GOP were, at one time, willing to put country before party. It remains to be seen whether they still consider the benefit of the country first these days.
All evidence points to NO. The party of hell no remains (stupidly) strong even though they lost another white house election. 2016 is going to be fun.
All evidence points to NO. The party of hell no remains (stupidly) strong even though they lost another white house election. 2016 is going to be fun.
When it concerns the irresponsible spending of the Democrats, I want the GOP to say "hell no." It is the only rational response. I do not care how many elections they win or lose.
When it concerns the irresponsible spending of the Democrats, I want the GOP to say "hell no." It is the only rational response. I do not care how many elections they win or lose.
So you want the GOP to say no to a deal that greatly reduces the deficit?
When it concerns the irresponsible spending of the Democrats, I want the GOP to say "hell no." It is the only rational response. I do not care how many elections they win or lose.
Exactly. Who cares who is in the White House when the real power is in who controls the purse.
So you want the GOP to say no to a deal that greatly reduces the deficit?
Absolutely, because it is a lie. Anytime any politician begins with "over the next 10 years..." you know they are lying through their teeth. One session of Congress cannot legally bind another session of Congress to anything. If it takes longer than two years, then you know they have no intention of carrying out their plan.
In the case of the Democrats, they are jokingly claiming they will balance the budget by 2040, even though their budget never comes to a balance.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan's budget is just as bad, claiming to reach a balanced budget in 10 years. If Congress can increase deficit spending by more than a trillion dollars in a single year, like they did in 2009, then Congress can certainly reduce spending by the same amount in the same span of time.
It is painfully obvious that neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to reduce deficit spending.
Absolutely, because it is a lie. Anytime any politician begins with "over the next 10 years..." you know they are lying through their teeth. One session of Congress cannot legally bind another session of Congress to anything. If it takes longer than two years, then you know they have no intention of carrying out their plan.
In the case of the Democrats, they are jokingly claiming they will balance the budget by 2040, even though their budget never comes to a balance.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan's budget is just as bad, claiming to reach a balanced budget in 10 years. If Congress can increase deficit spending by more than a trillion dollars in a single year, like they did in 2009, then Congress can certainly reduce spending by the same amount in the same span of time.
It is painfully obvious that neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to reduce deficit spending.
Slight adjustments alone to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security can save huge sums of money "over the next 10 years."
Slight adjustments alone to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security can save huge sums of money "over the next 10 years."
Considering that those three programs consume around 60% of the total federal budget, it makes sense to cut those entitlements since they are unsustainable. The fourth largest consumer of the federal budget is Defense spending, and that should also be cut by a like amount. The fifth biggest chunk of the federal budget goes to pay for the interest on the National Debt. Obviously that is one item that cannot be reduced, at least until we start paying off the National Debt.
Combined, MediCare/MedicAid, Social Security, and Defense spending constitute over 75% of the federal budget. By "cut" I do not mean reducing the overall growth, I mean an actual reduction in spending. Not over a 10 year period, but within the same session of Congress.
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.
