Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

#26
#26
utvolpj said:
it's a start. When you're having to dig money out of the Dem's freezer to give it back to the people it won't be an easy task. Do you seriously expect them to cut $1.5tril tomorrow?
Click to expand...
I bet gibbs could do it in a week. He may sell the military in the process, though.
 
#27
#27
droski said:
so therefore it shouldn't be done? you are like the wife who argues that the cable bill shouldn't be cut because you are $50K in debt and the $50 month doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


I'm saying the far right of the party, in lockstep with the Tea Party, campaigned on a platform of balancing the budget. You, and others on here, kept blasting me for suggesting that a lot of their real agenda was social policy. And now the budget show is over cutting funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood? Cuts that, even if made 100 % wouldn't make more than an iota of difference in the deficit plague they ran against?
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying the far right of the party, in lockstep with the Tea Party, campaigned on a platform of balancing the budget. You, and others on here, kept blasting me for suggesting that a lot of their real agenda was social policy. And now the budget show is over cutting funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood? Cuts that, even if made 100 % wouldn't make more than an iota of difference in the deficit plague they ran against?
Click to expand...
No, you've been blasted for arguing that the obvious reason for the foundation of the Tea Party was racism.
 
#29
#29
#30
#30
tvolsfan said:
No, you've been blasted for arguing that the obvious reason for the foundation of the Tea Party was racism.
Click to expand...


Way to deflect there.

There was quite a bit of discussion of social policy, abortion, education, etc. Sure enough, Bachmann and her ilk get in there and we are talking about abortion and the arts. Totally predictable.
 
#31
#31
are you arguing that isn't wasteful gov't spending or just don't agree with it being targeted? They've cut other things too
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Way to deflect there.

There was quite a bit of discussion of social policy, abortion, education, etc. Sure enough, Bachmann and her ilk get in there and we are talking about abortion and the arts. Totally predictable.
Click to expand...
It's not deflection. You babbled about how racism as the main reason for the tea party, IIRC. You were so one sided that people were pretty unlikely to take anything you sad seriously. The reason people dismiss many of your arguments is the same reason so many people dismiss joevol.
 
#33
#33
utvolpj said:
are you arguing that isn't wasteful gov't spending or just don't agree with it being targeted? They've cut other things too
Click to expand...


To the tune of $62 billion in a $3.5 trillion annual budget. It's like less than 5 % of the deficit portion.

The only guy out there really standing his ground is Paul, and even he at this point has basically been marginalized by the party.




tvolsfan said:
It's not deflection. You babbled about how racism as the main reason for the tea party, IIRC. You were so one sided that people were pretty unlikely to take anything you sad seriously. The reason people dismiss many of your arguments is the same reason so many people dismiss joevol.
Click to expand...


Them's fighting words.
 
#34
#34
droski said:
so therefore it shouldn't be done? you are like the wife who argues that the cable bill shouldn't be cut because you are $50K in debt and the $50 month doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

No im simply saying it really doesn't matter in the end. If politicians are not going to deal with Defense, Social Security, and Medicare, then the budget will Never be balanced and everything else is just for show.
 
#35
#35
DefenseisDesire said:
No im simply saying it really doesn't matter in the end. If politicians are not going to deal with Defense, Social Security, and Medicare, then the budget will Never be balanced and everything else is just for show.
Click to expand...


Bingo.

And a predictably ideological show, at that.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying the far right of the party, in lockstep with the Tea Party, campaigned on a platform of balancing the budget. You, and others on here, kept blasting me for suggesting that a lot of their real agenda was social policy. And now the budget show is over cutting funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood? Cuts that, even if made 100 % wouldn't make more than an iota of difference in the deficit plague they ran against?
Click to expand...

Which actually was a main point of the article (no idea why I bothered to post the link).

But in December, Republicans blocked Democrats from passing money to fund the government in 2011. That had an unanticipated result: when the Tea Party candidates came into office in January, they took the next step and demanded that the GOP’s promised $100 billion in cuts—a figure that Republican leaders had meant for the 2012 budget—apply to the remainder of 2011. Speaker John Boehner put up some initial resistance but quickly folded.

The GOP’s spending cuts come from the 12 percent of the budget known as “nondefense discretionary spending.” That’s not Medicare, Medicaid, big tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction, military spending, or Social Security—not, in other words, any of the major contributors to the deficit. Rather, it’s a hodgepodge of programs for education, retraining workers, housing the homeless, investing in infrastructure, and so forth. This part of the budget tends to be lean, as politicians continually return to it to make cuts. Why? Because its beneficiaries tend to be politically weak—kids rather than seniors, or unemployed workers rather than corporate titans.

Sorry to go all gs but I think these points are important to the debate.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
To the tune of $62 billion in a $3.5 trillion annual budget. It's like less than 5 % of the deficit portion.

The only guy out there really standing his ground is Paul, and even he at this point has basically been marginalized by the party.
Click to expand...

still didn't answer whether it's wasteful spending just that they need to do more. Seems like anything short of cutting $1.5tril won't be enough and even then it's likely to get picked at for cutting too deep.

Do you not even think there's a problem?
 
#38
#38
CSVol said:
Sorry to go all gs but I think these points are important to the debate.
Click to expand...
It's not gs unless the post is 3 times longer and contains pictures of Obama pictures with speech bubbles advocating communism and and Islam.
 
#39
#39
CSVol said:
Which actually was a main point of the article (no idea why I bothered to post the link).

But in December, Republicans blocked Democrats from passing money to fund the government in 2011. That had an unanticipated result: when the Tea Party candidates came into office in January, they took the next step and demanded that the GOP’s promised $100 billion in cuts—a figure that Republican leaders had meant for the 2012 budget—apply to the remainder of 2011. Speaker John Boehner put up some initial resistance but quickly folded.

The GOP’s spending cuts come from the 12 percent of the budget known as “nondefense discretionary spending.” That’s not Medicare, Medicaid, big tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction, military spending, or Social Security—not, in other words, any of the major contributors to the deficit. Rather, it’s a hodgepodge of programs for education, retraining workers, housing the homeless, investing in infrastructure, and so forth. This part of the budget tends to be lean, as politicians continually return to it to make cuts. Why? Because its beneficiaries tend to be politically weak—kids rather than seniors, or unemployed workers rather than corporate titans.

Sorry to go all gs but I think these points are important to the debate.
Click to expand...

I guess it's important but not really. The common theme seems to be to cut it all or don't pick on my pet projects. It's still wasteful spending
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying the far right of the party, in lockstep with the Tea Party, campaigned on a platform of balancing the budget. You, and others on here, kept blasting me for suggesting that a lot of their real agenda was social policy. And now the budget show is over cutting funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood? Cuts that, even if made 100 % wouldn't make more than an iota of difference in the deficit plague they ran against?
Click to expand...

how is cutting npr have anything to do with social policy? as for planned parenthood it's a racist organization. i'd think you'd be in favor of cutting it.
 
#41
#41
DefenseisDesire said:
No im simply saying it really doesn't matter in the end. If politicians are not going to deal with Defense, Social Security, and Medicare, then the budget will Never be balanced and everything else is just for show.
Click to expand...

of course it matters. $63 billion a year means $63 billion less of treasuries being issued a year meaning we don't pay interest on $63 billion A YEAR for the rest of eternity. i'd don't disagree that those other issues are a problem, but the socialist spending programs certainly are an issue as well.
 
#42
#42
DefenseisDesire said:
No im simply saying it really doesn't matter in the end. If politicians are not going to deal with Defense, Social Security, and Medicare, then the budget will Never be balanced and everything else is just for show.
Click to expand...

so then keep spending like being in debt is smart? Most would think it's dumb right?
 
#43
#43
CSVol said:
Which actually was a main point of the article (no idea why I bothered to post the link).

But in December, Republicans blocked Democrats from passing money to fund the government in 2011. That had an unanticipated result: when the Tea Party candidates came into office in January, they took the next step and demanded that the GOP’s promised $100 billion in cuts—a figure that Republican leaders had meant for the 2012 budget—apply to the remainder of 2011. Speaker John Boehner put up some initial resistance but quickly folded.

The GOP’s spending cuts come from the 12 percent of the budget known as “nondefense discretionary spending.” That’s not Medicare, Medicaid, big tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction, military spending, or Social Security—not, in other words, any of the major contributors to the deficit. Rather, it’s a hodgepodge of programs for education, retraining workers, housing the homeless, investing in infrastructure, and so forth. This part of the budget tends to be lean, as politicians continually return to it to make cuts. Why? Because its beneficiaries tend to be politically weak—kids rather than seniors, or unemployed workers rather than corporate titans.

Sorry to go all gs but I think these points are important to the debate.
Click to expand...

they should be screwing the old. i'd agree. but democrats aren't willing to tackle that either. not sure where you expect the "corporate titans" to pay considering we have among the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
 
#44
#44
Eventually the private sector will take up the slack so that Washington can focus on deficit reduction and debating whether to subsidize National Public Radio. But until then, the government needs to keep supporting the recovery.
Click to expand...
eventually :ermm:
 
#45
#45
people need to wake up and realize this isn't 20 years ago when america had virtually zero skilled labor competition. the other problem is obama using the money to pay back his cronies rather than job creation. are we to trust that more money will be used properly? is the negative economic effect of cutting NPR really significant enough to justify the cost?
 
#46
#46
CSVol said:
So losing 200-700k taxpayers helps how?
Click to expand...

NEOCON said:
fact is unless you make over 50K and have no kids you are not paying taxes. You will receive almost a full refund of all your money. The main percentage of taxes comes from the top 10%. Those making over 100k. In some states like California, I would lower that to 80K due to how fast their state income maxes out.

Tax payors are not the problem. The current tax system right now, as we speak, does not meet the needs of the federal governments spending. You cannot tax the majority of Americans enough to keep up with the spending that is going on.
Click to expand...


This is not only a tax system issue.

If these projections are true and we end up loosing 200-700K jobs, What has been gained as far as the budget deficit goes?

That would be adding an additional 200-700 K to unemployment benefits, food stamps etc. Most would lose their healthcare, all their children will be covered by some type of government insurance. That will force some into loosing their homes and go onto the renatal assistance program. The government will be picking up the cost of all these things. We are not just talking about the 200-700 k people who may lose their jobs, you have to include the number in their family that will be getting these benefits.

If the majority of these jobs are under $50K per year jobs and do not pay little if any income tax, their buying power and sales tax revenue helps local and state govenment and the economy.

Would congress not be cutting the deficit and at same time be adding to it by loosing that many jobs?
 
#47
#47
utvolpj said:
I guess it's important but not really. The common theme seems to be to cut it all or don't pick on my pet projects. It's still wasteful spending
Click to expand...

I believe them to be important. Of course gov't spending is wasteful and needs to be reigned in. The issues are when and what to cut. When=not right this minute. What=bigger fish than NPR and education. These are mistakes the TP seem to be trying to force GOP to make.
 
#48
#48
Gramps said:
This is not only a tax system issue.

If these projections are true and we end up loosing 200-700K jobs, What has been gained as far as the budget deficit goes?

That would be adding an additional 200-700 K to unemployment benefits, food stamps etc. Most would lose their healthcare, all their children will be covered by some type of government insurance. That will force some into loosing their homes and go onto the renatal assistance program. The government will be picking up the cost of all these things. We are not just talking about the 200-700 k people who may lose their jobs, you have to include the number in their family that will be getting these benefits.

If the majority of these jobs are under $50K per year jobs and do not pay little if any income tax, their buying power and sales tax revenue helps local and state govenment and the economy.

Would congress not be cutting the deficit and at same time be adding to it by loosing that many jobs?
Click to expand...

200K jobs is NOTHING. the effect on the economy is almost nonexistant. and if we don't cut these jobs now will they get cut when teh economy recovers? of course not. edit: even if you assume every dime of the cuts goes to wages (which is absurd) there is still a significant portion of that money that does not go back into the economy. i always question multiplier effect analysis when justifying govt spending.
 
Last edited:
#49
#49
CSVol said:
I believe them to be important. Of course gov't spending is wasteful and needs to be reigned in. The issues are when and what to cut. When=not right this minute. What=bigger fish than NPR and education. These are mistakes the TP seem to be trying to force GOP to make.
Click to expand...

when has gov't spending ever been cut during a booming economy? if you don't do it now when will you do it?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top