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.
As he said, insert "Democratic" for "Republican" and you have the other half of the country's view. Politics can be debated until the proverbial cows come home and it's not going to change one iota. I stopped getting upset at either side years ago when I came to the realization that the people have no say in anything. Hell, the popular vote doesn't even count. But discussing does pass the time...
OK, but if one side is willing to deal, and give away some of what they want - and the other side isn't...it's pretty clear who to blame. False equivalency is actually just as toxic to our national debate (and here in Rhody) as blind partisanship.
To pretend that Democrats in DC who actually make the laws, are as rabidly liberal as the Republicans are "conservative" is utterly laughable once one delves into specifics. I laid out a little bit of that already in this thread.
Democrats heart ONLY taxes (or so the stereotype says.)
Republicans heart ONLY cuts.
So if Dems are willing to do 3 to one spending cuts as long as they get some revenue, and Repubs are willing to do ONLY cuts, who is more to blame? Wishy washy "middle of the road" analysis not actually based on specific facts does no one any real favors.
This thread is about the effects sequestration will have on Rhode Island, not a national political thread. As it is currently running off the rails, the thread belongs in a national political forum for bashing Obama, not a forum about Rhode Island. It seems to me the moderator should address this issue and get this topic back on track, but that's just my opinion.
So back to topic: the effects of sequestration to Rhode Islanders. The OP cited a WH report that indicated some of the following services would be impacting Rhode Island:
Vaccinations for Rhode Island children; nutritional assistance to Rhode Island seniors; job search funding cuts; Rhode Island teachers will be laid off, and so much more will be cut. These are cuts that affect REAL Rhode Islanders, REAL people. It seems to me that people who care about Rhode Island should be alarmed and disturbed by these real cuts to Rhode Island.
My reply was to wxjay and is totally relative to sequestration. The 2.8% "cut" is the sequestration; the "warnings" and or "alarms" from Obama relative to how this affects people all over the country is merely a scare tactic.
If you have a problem with the above, please contact the moderator. If you feel the thread is running off the rails, the mod will appropriately decide where it belongs. Have a nice day.
My reply was to wxjay and is totally relative to sequestration. The 2.8% "cut" is the sequestration; and all of the "warnings" from Obama about how this is going to affect people is merely a scare tactic.
It is relevant to sequestration on a NATIONAL LEVEL, it is not relevant on a RHODE ISLAND LEVEL. Does this look like a national political forum to you? Me neither.
Quote:
If you have a problem with that post, please contact the moderator. If the thread is running off the rails in your opinion, the mod will appropriately decide where it belongs. Have a nice day.
He'll read the post and if he agrees, he'll take appropriate action.
So if Dems are willing to do 3 to one spending cuts as long as they get some revenue, and Repubs are willing to do ONLY cuts, who is more to blame? Wishy washy "middle of the road" analysis not actually based on specific facts does no one any real favors.
The bill currently before the Senate does not propose 3 to 1 spending cuts/revenues. It instead does accounting tricks by counting money not spent in the future from a war that will end. Furthermore, there is not a bill out about the purported entitlement reform that the President claims to favor.
We also keep hearing from President Obama about a 'balanced' approach. That implies 1:1. So, 3:1 would be unbalanced. So, this is growing more confusing.
And re: what this thread is about - it is about sequestration cuts, which is a national issue, and its impacts on the state level. Discussion of the campaigning by the President and whether or not the cuts are 'real' are germane to suggested impacts on RI. The two cannot be disentangled.
Wxjay, you are clearly not understanding my posts. Obama proposed the three to one cuts to Boehner to bring before his Caucus. His caucus rejected it because there are revenues involved. (Just like they did in 2011 when Obama offered even MORE cuts as an olive branch to the Tea Party. Of course, back then Boehner thought he had the votes only to find out later that he did not.) Period. Full stop. The Senate bill is entirely separate, but also relevant since it also relies on both methods rather than the rigid Republican joke of an approach.
Of course, since austerity is the dumbest thing one can do during a recession/recovery (see Europe), this political dialogue is already so inanely ludicrous that it really renders our situation pretty dour.
If you don't understand this paradigm, see Econ 101 and get back to me.
It is relevant to sequestration on a NATIONAL LEVEL, it is not relevant on a RHODE ISLAND LEVEL. Does this look like a national political forum to you? Me neither.
It's too bad, but this thread was derailed in the 2nd post when this lunacy was posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieBoy
I swear, the Republicans are a sub-cult of the bin-Ladenists! They HATE America! They want America to FAIL! They want our seniors to EAT CAT FOOD! And not the good kind, mind you, not the Tender Vittles -- they want them to eat generic dry food.
Ahhhh what a bunch of horse sh*t this is. Those entitlements are paid for - unlike all the crap that republitards have voted to add to the budget over the past 30 years. All you have to do is go back to 1980 and see that even after social security and even after LBJ's Great Society, the debt to GDP ratio was about the same as it was in 1870. Republican presidents and their accomplices in congress are the ones who needlessly spent money on defense projects and wars that got us absolutely nothing in return, and moreover, cut taxes on the wealthiest of Americans. Entitlement spending is not the problem. Republicans and their voters' inability to understand basic economics and their ignorance of economic history are the real problems.
Well I have some news for, in that the growth in entitlement spending has far exceeded other expenditures up to this point.
It's more what the Dems won't cut (the inevitable). The Repubs have already given into tax increases, please stop dodging around that fact.
You mean the Bush tax cuts that were actually scheduled by the Republicans to sunset in 2010.
So I see. We've cut a projected 1.5 trillion already, and we need to cut more. (And I think we should if targeted correctly perhaps.) But raise taxes 3% on the 2% of the population who can most afford it (who in fact, won't even NOTICE it), and that's it - NO MORE REVENUES! What a perfectly reasonable and defensible position!
Of course, this whole Republican belly aching over the sequestration is an insulting joke given what the Weeper of the House had to say about it right after negotiations concluded in August of 2011:
So I see. We've cut a projected 1.5 trillion already, and we need to cut more. (And I think we should if targeted correctly perhaps.)
You think we should perhaps?
Today the President is rejecting a new bill which would give him the power to target cuts for $85 billion because he doesn't think he should have to choose between cutting money to a disabled child or to a poor child. That's the attitude right now - the President has NO interest in making $85 billion in cuts - targeted or not targeted. If he did, then he would take this up and just make the cuts in this proposal he made to Boehner.
Quote:
But raise taxes 3% on the 2% of the population who can most afford it (who in fact, won't even NOTICE it)
I'm sorry, but who the heck are you to tell 2% of the population what the 'notice' and what they don't? What a terrible attitude to have for your fellow Americans.
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.
The 2.8% "cut" is the sequestration; the "warnings" and or "alarms" from Obama relative to how this affects people all over the country is merely a scare tactic.
