Sin City Vol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2014
- Messages
- 9,119
- Likes
- 10,605
Increased revenue is pretty worthless without meaningful control on spending. Saying you have more water to pour into a bucket with holes only means more wasted water.Your proposal is more taxes. And then finally reduce spending.....shouldn't we reduce spending first and then maybe we wouldn't need to raise taxes..
Only a liberal would do that, anyone else that couldn't afford new tires would just stop driving the car until they could afford the tires.That's like saying that because you could not agree on a price at the dealership to get new tires you are going to intentionally run out of gas a few days later and strand yourself by the side of the road to symbolize how much it costs in total to run a car.
You will eventually have to gas up your clunker to get it moving. And you will still have to buy new tires.
You've accomplished nothing.
My my my how sanctimonious you are when you're not in power.That's like saying that because you could not agree on a price at the dealership to get new tires you are going to intentionally run out of gas a few days later and strand yourself by the side of the road to symbolize how much it costs in total to run a car.
You will eventually have to gas up your clunker to get it moving. And you will still have to buy new tires.
You've accomplished nothing.
yes, but when does that get implemented? That seems to be the issue you are raising. The Rs are pushing #3 and you keep yelling about now not being the right mechanism for that.Seems to me there are three means to reduce the debt:
1) Growth resulting in increasing tax revenue (which we do not just spend, but use to pay down debt).
2) Increase taxes.
3) Reduce spending.
IMO, we will have to do all three. The mix is the question.
yes, but when does that get implemented? That seems to be the issue you are raising. The Rs are pushing #3 and you keep yelling about now not being the right mechanism for that.
the impending shut downs are part of the negotiations that have been on going.
as others have pointed out this is political theatre. Someone will buckle right at the 11th hour, and nothing will be addressed because of your mindset, and we will have this same discussion in November when the Senate proposal ends.
I'm just not seeing the point. All that happens is that a slice of the government work force is told not to show up for work Monday, and to stay home until resolved. Then they all ultimately get paid anyway, for the time they were out.
If the goal is to call attention in the big picture to government inefficiency, this seems like all it does is, you know, make the government even more inefficient.
If this is all about the Freedom Caucus ousting McCarthy, then just do that. No need for the histrionics.
Only I did that was when I lived in Orlando. I get a direct flight from my house in Atlanta to my temporary gig out here, only 2 hours, aint too shabby. But we aren't a hub for anyone so if its more than 2 hours away I have to swap planes.Can you get me direct from ATL to SEA when I am headed to Japan? every shortcut helps.
Just kidding of course. Thanks for the great job your guys do.
This sentence right here makes the point you are trying to refute. You want the "mainstream" GOP to maintain the status quo and cooperate with the Dems to kick this can down the road. Both parties got us into this.The GOP mainstream in the House recognizes that the way to address this, as in the past, is a resolution to fund the government.