The utter stupidity in Republicans holding the country hostage over the debt-limit

[InstigatinMofo]

They say they want spending cuts and entitlement reform.

Rep. Ellison: ‘If Republicans want to do cuts,’ then cut corporate welfare - ‘If you want to save money, you want to cut the deficit, let’s let there be competitive bidding for Medicare Part D prescription drugs. That would save about $150 billion.”

Excluding items Social Security and Medicare, which are paid for by participants, the government spent about $16.5 billion in 2011 on actual welfare, better known as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, according to budget numbers compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
Conversely, the U.S. spent about $100 billion on corporate welfare in 2012 — defined as individual subsidies to corporations or industry groups — according to the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

corn subsidies and "defense" spending could use a nice haircut too.

[I invented that]

Rep. Ellison: ‘If Republicans want to do cuts,’ then cut corporate welfare - ‘If you want to save money, you want to cut the deficit, let’s let there be competitive bidding for Medicare Part D prescription drugs. That would save about $150 billion.”

Excluding items Social Security and Medicare, which are paid for by participants, the government spent about $16.5 billion in 2011 on actual welfare, better known as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, according to budget numbers compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
Conversely, the U.S. spent about $100 billion on corporate welfare in 2012 — defined as individual subsidies to corporations or industry groups — according to the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

corn subsidies and "defense" spending could use a nice haircut too.

Not too misleading, it's close to a trillion.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/re...1-03-trillion/

[JDs tees]

Someone at some point is gonna have to break it to the american people that everyone's taxes have to go up some, and even then there have to be some changes to entitlements if we ever wanna get the country back on track.

This is the thing. Now that the bush tax cuts are permanent, it's gonna be real difficult to raise taxes. I was hoping for a temporary extension, or a phasing out, but now revenue streams are limited.

[I invented that]

This is the thing. Now that the bush tax cuts are permanent, it's gonna be real difficult to raise taxes. I was hoping for a temporary extension, or a phasing out, but now revenue streams are limited.

In your opinion it's all an income problem, so ignore the spending.

[JDs tees]

In your opinion it's all an income problem, so ignore the spending.

Dont tell me what my opinion is, that's what liberals do

[RiotGrip]

This is the thing. Now that the bush tax cuts are permanent, it's gonna be real difficult to raise taxes. I was hoping for a temporary extension, or a phasing out, but now revenue streams are limited.

Basically all marginal tax rates were "permanent" before the bush tax cuts, govt would raise or lower based on ideology and budget needs. Then media changed in the early nineties from info driven to ratings driven and raising taxes became as heated of an issue as abortion. The Bush tax cuts/Obama tax cuts had expiration dates because the CBO showed that they were unsustainable, and that was the only way to pass them. Taxes probably won't go up until after Obama is out. The 2016 election will likely consist of both sides tightly guarding what they will do to reel in the budget, and at the end of the day we'll all see a tax increase.

I've said it before, republicans (and democrats) say this is the greatest country in the world. How can you get the best while paying the least?

[RiotGrip]

In your opinion it's all an income problem, so ignore the spending.

Creating a false dichotomy also ignores the problem. We have both a SPENDING and a REVENUE problem.

[I invented that]

Creating a false dichotomy also ignores the problem. We have both a SPENDING and a REVENUE problem.

It's not really a false dichotomy because there are only two options, either we spend too much or there's not enough revenue.

[RiotGrip]

It's not really a false dichotomy because there are only two options, either we spend too much or there's not enough revenue.

I guess I see it a bit differently. We can not close the trillion dollar deficit with tax increases or spending cuts alone, we need both to even come close. Therefore there is both a revenue and a spending problem. It stems from govt trying to be all things to all people.

[racerx]

We kinda just have to take your word for it that deep down inside republicans do not want spending cuts. The thing is, I don't care what is deep down inside them. I care what they do. They say they want spending cuts and entitlement reform. I applaud that even if some anonymous internet person tells me that deep down they really don't want to make cuts.

don't take my word. you watched too as reps. had 4 years total control of gov. and could have cut anything they wanted, and they cut nothing.
and they have the house now and i didn't see any spending cut bill pass. i did see them just pass a 'deficit reducing' bill that doesn't reduce the deficit.
even ryan, who i thought one the the few true deficit hawks, voted for that garbage. yet you mock me, and applaud him.
and the very few times bam did want to cut something, they trashed him for it.

most don't want to cut spending because no mater what they cut, they will lose a segment of votes.
their #1 goal is re-election, not re-form. IMO

and don't forget that the republican majority house just extended unemployment comp. for another full year.
that's cutting entitlements?
i'm sympathetic to people out of work. however, after 2 years they aren't looking very hard.
they need to get re-trained, re-located, or be willing to accept a lower salary.
i guess why should they try if they get paid anyways.

[MatthewT]

Were any other presidents purposely trying to bankrupt America?

no, which is why obama has been spending more than all of the rest of them. combined.

get it yet?

[MatthewT]

I think we can look at years 2000 to 2006 when republicans controlled the whitehouse, the house of representatives, and the senate (almost the whole time), and I don't recall very much debate on spending cuts--in fact no serious entitlement reform was proposed. In 2003 we even added to entitlements with a medicare prescription plan. I do remember the phrase "deficits don't matter" thrown around plenty in 2004.

The reality is that the majority of republican politicians only care about the debt and deficit when a democrat is president, and the same goes for democrats when a republican is president. Bush told us that we could have the best of everything in this country and no one would ever have to pay more for it, Obama has said the exact same thing only that the top 2% of people should pay a little more.

so, if you don't recall it, it didn't happen? is that the standard we're going by now?

[MatthewT]

I'm not defending anything. But the idea that we can fix our problems with just cutting spending is ridiculous. The Paul Ryan budget which passed the house and was touted as bold thinking didn't actually get rid of the deficit for 30 to 40 years! It also would raise out of pocket healthcare costs on older americans significantly(some might call it a tax increase).

Someone at some point is gonna have to break it to the american people that everyone's taxes have to go up some, and even then there have to be some changes to entitlements if we ever wanna get the country back on track.

the idea that we can cut spending by cutting spending is ridiculous? is this really your position?

[MatthewT]

I guess I see it a bit differently. We can not close the trillion dollar deficit with tax increases or spending cuts alone, we need both to even come close. Therefore there is both a revenue and a spending problem. It stems from govt trying to be all things to all people.

so, we can't erase a $1Trillion deficit by cutting spending by $1Trillion

you're getting dopey dude

[racerx]

no, which is why obama has been spending more than all of the rest of them. combined.

get it yet?

congress spends.

spending itself isn't a bad thing, its the wasteful spending that's the problem.
if you become the new president of a company with a leaking roof, you spend whatever it takes to fix the roof.
spending on more buckets and mops is just a waste. even tho on paper it shows much less spending.

[RiotGrip]

so, if you don't recall it, it didn't happen? is that the standard we're going by now?

Seems like you have no proof that it did? Or did I miss something

so, we can't erase a $1Trillion deficit by cutting spending by $1Trillion


you're getting dopey dude

That represents a third of the budget. If you have a group of people saying we wont cut defense, social security, or medicare--you can cut everything else and maybe just break even(but your state taxes would skyrocket). The Paul ryan budget that was passed and applauded by conservatives didn't cut that 1 trillion of spending to zero for about 40 years--so conservatives applaud a plan that shifts costs to seniors but doesn't raise taxes and only takes 40 years to start running a surplus. Show me some hard numbers that any Republican is pushing that would get rid of 1 trillion dollars of spending immediately--you can't because it only exists on the airways of talk radio that you listen to. But I'm the one getting dopey

[MatthewT]

congress spends.

spending itself isn't a bad thing, its the wasteful spending that's the problem.
if you become the new president of a company with a leaking roof, you spend whatever it takes to fix the roof.
spending on more buckets and mops is just a waste. even tho on paper it shows much less spending.

so, spending isn't wasteful if the government does it? or wasteful spending is okay if we have the money to spend? or wasteful spending is ok under any conditions? or spending is ok even if we don't have the money and have to borrow it from people who want to kill us all?

get a grip dude

[MatthewT]

Seems like you have no proof that it did? Or did I miss something



That represents a third of the budget. If you have a group of people saying we wont cut defense, social security, or medicare--you can cut everything else and maybe just break even(but your state taxes would skyrocket). The Paul ryan budget that was passed and applauded by conservatives didn't cut that 1 trillion of spending to zero for about 40 years--so conservatives applaud a plan that shifts costs to seniors but doesn't raise taxes and only takes 40 years to start running a surplus. Show me some hard numbers that any Republican is pushing that would get rid of 1 trillion dollars of spending immediately--you can't because it only exists on the airways of talk radio that you listen to. But I'm the one getting dopey

have you already forgotten about cut, cap, and balance, that takes like 8 years?

but you're dopey because you think we can't save a Trillion dollars by not spending a trillion dollars. that's dopey.

go tell your boss you're going to need an extra thousand next month for a new computer, and that you need a raise to do so. tell him your credit cards are all maxed out and you have to get a raise to buy the new computer. see what he says.

now imagine that's reality

[racerx]

so, spending isn't wasteful if the government does it?
or wasteful spending is okay if we have the money to spend?
or wasteful spending is ok under any conditions?
or spending is ok even if we don't have the money and have to borrow it from people who want to kill us all?

get a grip dude

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

get a grip dude (and quit being dishonest)

[MatthewT]

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

no. i didn't say that. why pretend that's my position.

get a grip dude (and quit being dishonest)

how is asking you to clarify your ridiculous position assigning to you a ridiculous position? those were actual questions.....not rhetorical questions....