So the Pub strategy is to hold the nation and economy hostage?

[ONW]

Put some of these cuts on the table NOW, then we can talk about raising the limit. But if you are going to say "we have to wait until the recession is over" then that's a non-starter for me.

What are you going to cut? Specifically. If you think a politician is going back to their constituency saying that they are axing spending in their district your kidding yourself.

And where was the Republican outrage when they raised the debt ceiling 7 fucking times in the previous decade?

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Americans don't want to kill Medicare to give the rich huge tax cuts. That's for sure.

In fact why don't make it a simple referendum. Winner take all:

If you want to kill Medicare with vouchers that don't guarantee you'll have to pay for insurance and you want to cut taxes on the Top 1% by 30% you vote Republican.

If you donm't you vote Dem.

Who do you think would win?

If the Dems have ANY brains that's the simple ad they will run in every district and nationally.

If there is one thing on which one can count, it's that your ideas for political ads will be awful.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

THe poor and the middle class drive the economy not the people in the Top2% of income brackets. To think the Top 2% drives the economy is insanity and was categorically disproven in the Bush era.

We HAVE taken most of the troops out of Iraq. We have no troops fighting in Iraq at this time.

That will come as some surprise to the troops still in Iraq encountering insurgents.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

You're the only person bringing up "rich"...but I will say that if your family is earning over $250K and you can't figure a way to live on 3% less take home, then you are fucking idiot who is living beyond your means.

Such irony. We're the fucking idiot country that is living beyond our means.

 

[RJKarl]

Then it would make sense to increase revenues. It's insanity to think we can take in less than we did in the 90s by percentage and not have a huge deficit.

Which pussy didn't sign their neg rep?

 

[greekdeac2011]

It's too dangerous to play around with the debt ceiling. The GOP doesn't need to play politics with it.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Then it would make sense to increase revenues. It's insanity to think we can take in less than we did in the 90s by percentage and not have a huge deficit.

Which pussy didn't sign their neg rep?

How are you going to increase revenue? Higher taxes don't necessarily do that. Like corporate taxes...companies find way around them because they're too damn high and to pay them would do significant damage to the stock price. Lower the tax but make it harder avoid and they'd probably make more money.

But simply raising the tax doesn't gurarantee you anything. The only thing nearly guaranteed to bring down the debt is to cut spending. Unless revenues fall yet again, spending cuts will result a lower debt.

 

[DeacWatcher]

What are you going to cut? Specifically. If you think a politician is going back to their constituency saying that they are axing spending in their district your kidding yourself.

And where was the Republican outrage when they raised the debt ceiling 7 fucking times in the previous decade?

+1 WHERE was the outrage? The Pubs are such hyppocrites about spending. The fact that they actually want to cut spending is a joke. It just shows the tea party strategy is the only strategy they have to win the elections of 2012 and that ain't gonna fly with the majority of Americans when you tell them you're taking away their benefits that they spent their whole life working for.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

It worked in the most recent election.

 

[DeacWatcher]

The message was cut spending with no clear definition as to how that would be done that worked in 2012. Tell the country you're cutting their benefits (which they paid for) by 30% while allowing Bush tax cuts to hang around and only cutting DOD by 10% and see where that gets you with the middle class on down. It won't matter whether they are Pubs or Dems.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

They didn't pay for those benefits for themselves, they paid for other people to get them at the time they were paid. Taxes aren't personal savings account, and most people under the age of 50 have realized that for a long time. I don't think most people (though certainly some try to jump on it ASAP) look at their Medicaid and Unemployment taxes and say wow, I can't wait until I've built up enough in my Medicaid and Unemployment accounts so that I can go on those programs as well.

 

[RJKarl]

How are you going to increase revenue? Higher taxes don't necessarily do that. Like corporate taxes...companies find way around them because they're too damn high and to pay them would do significant damage to the stock price. Lower the tax but make it harder avoid and they'd probably make more money.
But simply raising the tax doesn't gurarantee you anything. The only thing nearly guaranteed to bring down the debt is to cut spending. Unless revenues fall yet again, spending cuts will result a lower debt.

Total BS....W's tax cut is directly responsible for over 20% of our national debt.

Over the next decade keeping it will cost us $3-4T more. It's totally irresponsible.

And yes we need to cut defense dramatically and streamline other departments.

 

[DeacWatcher]

They didn't pay for those benefits for themselves, they paid for other people to get them at the time they were paid. Taxes aren't personal savings account, and most people under the age of 50 have realized that for a long time. I don't think most people (though certainly some try to jump on it ASAP) look at their Medicaid and Unemployment taxes and say wow, I can't wait until I've built up enough in my Medicaid and Unemployment accounts so that I can go on those programs as well.

I agree, but soscial security and medicare are different. People actually do expect that to be there when the time comes and not reduced benefits because government can't control other parts bloated and unnecessary spending (wars, big shot tax cuts, wellfare, etc.).

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Total BS....W's tax cut is directly responsible for over 20% of our national debt.

Over the next decade keeping it will cost us $3-4T more. It's totally irresponsible.

And yes we need to cut defense dramatically and streamline other departments.

Wrong. Spending more than we take in is responsible for 100% of our debt.

You can't tax your way out of this.

Cut defense dramatically...how dramatically? What would you cut? I hope you're not looking at cutting operationally significant funds or programs when we're fighting four wars. Last year I heard Obama's not about to pull us out of any of those.

I remember Obama promising a full audit of government organizations...where are we with that? Bet there's a lot of fat that could be cut out of practically every organization.

 

[RJKarl]

What's irresponsible is thinking that you can cut spending and not raise revenues and be able to get out tis situation.

How is NOT taking in those trillions NOT responsible for that shortfall?

 

[SCDeac]

What's irresponsible is thinking that you can cut spending and not raise revenues and be able to get out tis situation.

How is NOT taking in those trillions NOT responsible for that shortfall?

How can you say that not receiving revenue is an expense? It doesn't cost you anything if you take in less. A tax cut is not an expense...basic governmental accounting.

Revenue to the federal govt in 2000 (Clinton's last year) - $2.025 Trillion
Revenue to the federal govt. in 2008 (Bush's last year) - $2.523 Trillion

I wouldn't classify a 25% increase in revenue over 8 years as trying to operate the govt. on less today compared to 2000 or the 1990's.

 

[RJKarl]

Check out the GDP...

Why is not receiving revenue you should be getting an expense? Hmmmm.....it's an AR....it's like putting a product on sale when you can get full price...you don't do it...and it's patnetly insane to do it to lose MORE money.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I agree, but soscial security and medicare are different. People actually do expect that to be there when the time comes and not reduced benefits because government can't control other parts bloated and unnecessary spending (wars, big shot tax cuts, wellfare, etc.).

Most people under about 50 don't expect Social Security to be there for them in any meaningful way. If they do, given all of the readily-available forecasts, then they are stupid. And I think that is a big part of where we are at. People are realizing that, individually, they are not going to get jack because it all gets spent before it gets collected. So, they are saying why should someone get it now when those paying for it won't get it in the future.

 

[SCDeac]

Then it would make sense to increase revenues. It's insanity to think we can take in less than we did in the 90s by percentage and not have a huge deficit.
Which pussy didn't sign their neg rep?

I was responding to this...growth in revenue to the federal govt. grew by 25% during the 8 Bush years.

 

[RJKarl]

but not in line with GDP....that's the relevant part......