AsburySkinsFan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think that would be the first step towards economic common sense, probably coupled with some initial pain as all change does, then things will mend since we would be spending in an intelligent fashion. I'll take it that by "things mending" you understand that over night balancing the budget would be nearly catastrophic. allow me to flip the question please...What do you think will happen if we see the same proportionate increases in spending for the next few years? In your heart of hearts, do you really feel this path is sustainable? Nope I don't, but I'm also smart enough to realize that those aren't the only two alternatives. ---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 12:35 PM ---------- As far as torpedoing the deal...all on the dems, they got exactly what they wanted in this. They never had any intention of coming to a deal. They wanted over 1 trillion in new taxes so they could keep spending. As far as Boehner, this is one of the few times I actually disagree. Let the cuts happen. But I think that this request is politics at work. Obama will refuse this and the GOP can blame Obama for gutting the military. Its all about positioning right now. Well, Mr. Speaker I didn't know you had an account on ES! Cool beans...hey nothing personal about all the nasty stuff I said about you...kai thnx bai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not surprising. But its true.That sounds nice, but just "being against spending," which is what a lot of GOP congressionals are now, is not pragmatic. Especially when, even in your hypothetical, it is possible to have more money, i.e. increase revenues. Being pragmatic means being willing to give and take. At least it means that to some respect. Your comment in a lot of ways is just the opposite of pragmatism, especially if it means "I am totally against any increased spending in any scenario because don't have money and I'm against raising taxes too." I dont believe the definition of pragmatic includes the terms "give and take", it is simply meaning matters related to fact. Fact is, we are spending money that doesnt exist in most Federal endeavors. Pragmatic would be to spend only what we have. Of course this is merely my personal view, but I think its sound. ---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 12:37 PM ---------- I'll take it that by "things mending" you understand that over night balancing the budget would be nearly catastrophic.Nope I don't, but I'm also smart enough to realize that those aren't the only two alternatives. ---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 12:35 PM ---------- Well, Mr. Speaker I didn't know you had an account on ES! Cool beans...hey nothing personal about all the nasty stuff I said about you...kai thnx bai. I keep seeing people say that it would be catastrophic, yet havent seen evidence as to why. Using Paul's proposed budget that balances by 2013, what would be "catastrophic"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I keep seeing people say that it would be catastrophic, yet havent seen evidence as to why. Using Paul's proposed budget that balances by 2013, what would be "catastrophic"? You do realize just how much our economy is being floated because of the deficit spending right? BTW, for someone concerned about unemployment numbers it seems odd that you're suggesting a plan to make them go even higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 You do realize just how much our economy is being floated because of the deficit spending right? BTW, for someone concerned about unemployment numbers it seems odd that you're suggesting a plan to make them go even higher. I dont see where cuts would result in permanent job loss, but I definitely see where economic collapse would do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I dont see where cuts would result in permanent job loss, but I definitely see where economic collapse would do so. So what is Paul planning to cut that isn't going to cut jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 So what is Paul planning to cut that isn't going to cut jobs? First and formost, overseas entanglements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think it's foolish to say that one side is obstructionist while the other is trying their best to get things done. That's just the worst kind of politics IMO. Both parties are committed to positions that will not succeed. Yeah, the GOP is adamant about extending Bush Tax Cuts and not increasing taxes but the Left is just as adamant about putting off immediate cuts in spending and forcing them out for other Administrations and Congressional bodies to have to deal with. They are just as adamant about increasing taxation without reducing social speeding. This is not a one sided deal. Really? How much revenue increases does this deal have in it? And how much spending cuts? How about the last deal that wasn't one sided? How much spending cuts, and how much revenue increases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 ah yes saying you want to balance the budget then calling out the president to stop spending cuts :cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSTEqHxh3fI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If Herr Jumbo was Supreme Dictator, Bonehead would be one of many on both sides of the aisle (and more than a few who sit in the middle, supposedly, or just play musical chairs) who would be disappeared to a remote island to live Lord of the Flies style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The new guys are different. Unfortunately, they are different in that they not only thwart the goals of the Dems, they thwart the goals of the GOP as well. In the meantime. nothing continues to get done, which is fine in the eyes of the new guys. Just pointing out that gridlock isn't necessarily a Bad Thing. In fact, before 08, I seem to recall saying, myself, that I was voting for gridlock. This is especially true when the choice is between "gridlock" and "doing our damnedest to make things worse, as quickly as possible". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Just pointing out that gridlock isn't necessarily a Bad Thing. In fact, before 08, I seem to recall saying, myself, that I was voting for gridlock. This is especially true when the choice is between "gridlock" and "doing our damnedest to make things worse, as quickly as possible". I like that Larry, it seems its often a matter of perspective as it is with most things. Good post man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 As far as torpedoing the deal...all on the dems, they got exactly what they wanted in this. They never had any intention of coming to a deal. They wanted over 1 trillion in new taxes so they could keep spending. Wow. I bet you can't support even one of the whoppers you've spouted, there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 First and formost, overseas entanglements. when that is translated to "troops in iraq" or "troops in afghanistan" .... fine. discussion is open. what Ron Paul calls for is a return to isolationist 1905 america. and as the only remaining world power, that is foolish. the US and the world would suffer if we pretended we were switzerland. we are not. never mind the fact that the foreign affairs budget is a pretty miniscule portion of the budget. Some cuts to the "defense" budget? (which foreign affairs is also dependent upon) ---- fine... if you don't go crazy. but i ALSO don't see why some of you lunatics think it is somehow more noble or macho to just immediately lop off the spending immediately and make the cuts NOW, and somehow it is not actually reducing if you program reductions to be phased in over time.... that is suicidal during a local and global downturn (or anytime, really). you don't lose weight by just taking a chainsaw to your love handles.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 BTW, while I have no great love for rigidly "dedicated" or "fervent" dems or GOPers in many (not all) cases, this popular theme that both sides have been "equally obstructionist" is nonsense and reflects partisanship and bias itself. The GOP has been decidedly more obstinate and unwilling in honest compromise than their counterparts in the last two years. Failure to see/admit that reflects a similarly askew mentality with those who say "Fox News and CNN are the same bias level." It's simply not so by any reasonably objective standard. Now dems have often, in their history, been just as bad, so no one with a decently operating brain should pretend one group is inherently better than the other, but many do even while denying they do it. Currently and recenty however, the GOP has been not only more full of bat-**** crazy (beyond ideology or policy differences) than the dems as has been well established to most (again, reasonably objective observers) but they also have indeed been notably more obstructionist and (when I'm feeling feisty) closer to treasonous*. (*a little closing extremism so I blend in) :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 when that is translated to "troops in iraq" or "troops in afghanistan" .... fine. discussion is open.what Ron Paul calls for is a return to isolationist 1905 america. and as the only remaining world power, that is foolish. the US and the world would suffer if we pretended we were switzerland. we are not. never mind the fact that the foreign affairs budget is a pretty miniscule portion of the budget. Some cuts to the "defense" budget? (which foreign affairs is also dependent upon) ---- fine... if you don't go crazy. but i ALSO don't see why some of you lunatics think it is somehow more noble or macho to just immediately lop off the spending immediately and make the cuts NOW, and somehow it is not actually reducing if you program reductions to be phased in over time.... that is suicidal during a local and global downturn (or anytime, really). you don't lose weight by just taking a chainsaw to your love handles.... I suggest you read his plan, since it is in fact phased in cuts and changes over time. The difference is that they are actual cuts over a shorter period of time rather than what we see from many others as cuts to planned future increases over many decades (ryan plan). His Foreign policy cuts are mainly centric on Iraq and Afghanistan, so you can feel better on that, and No, you are 100% incorrect that his thoughts are isolationist in any regard since isolationism would also prohibit trade, which he has not ever proposed. He proposed a 15% cut in the DOD budget along with ending the wars. While more aggressive than most plans, thats hardly an unacceptable proposal. Everything else is essentially bringing their budgets back to 2006 levels, If I may add, Oct 2006 unemployment was in the mid 4% range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 As far as torpedoing the deal...all on the dems, they got exactly what they wanted in this. They never had any intention of coming to a deal. They wanted over 1 trillion in new taxes so they could keep spending. Sure, if by "torpedoing" you mean "not caving in to every demand of the other party." All six of the Republican senators and House members on the 12-member committee have taken an oath that they would never raise income tax rates on individuals or corporations. And yet it's the Dems who are holding things up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The Dems however have moved the middle to the left in entitlements,so of course they are more willing to compromise with simply a reduction in expanded spending elsewhere. The Reps are no better A pox on all of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Wow. I bet you can't support even one of the whoppers you've spouted, there. Did the Dems want over 1 trillion in taxes> Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The Dems however have moved the middle to the left in entitlements,so of course they are more willing to compromise with simply a reduction in expanded spending elsewhere.The Reps are no better A pox on all of them What planet are some of you getting your news from. There were cuts to medicare, medicaid, and social security in the supercommittee compromise proposed by the dems. And it probably wouldve been the end of the political careers of those democrats because of it. But it also had increased taxes in it, and so the GOP stopped it. Honestly, where are people getting their info on what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Did the Dems want over 1 trillion in taxes> Yes or no. And Republicans want trillions in spending cuts. So what is your point? Also, as I noted above, EVERY single Republican member of the GOP that is on the Supercommittee pledged to never raise revenue by a ****ing penny, whether by increases to the tax rates or the elimination of deductions/credits. In other words, they came to the negotiating table and their position is, "We're here to negotiate. In exchange for us talking with you, you must give us everything we want." :ols: I can't wait for you to elaborate on your theory the Supercommittee deal was torpedoed by the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 TSF I paid no attention at all to anything the super committee put out Why should I when it is useless? Incompetence created it and they are simply immaterial....by choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Sure, if by "torpedoing" you mean "not caving in to every demand of the other party." All six of the Republican senators and House members on the 12-member committee have taken an oath that they would never raise income tax rates on individuals or corporations. And yet it's the Dems who are holding things up? Gee that's funny considering the GOP offered up 300 Billion in tax increases. Guess they didn't live up to that pledge huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Gee that's funny considering the GOP offered up 300 Billion in tax increases. Guess they didn't live up to that pledge huh. Ummmm, the $300 billion in tax hikes were tied to an extension of the Bush tax cuts that would cost several trillion over a decade. Are you actually citing their offer to reduce taxes by a few trillion as your evidence that the GOP was willing to compromise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Fact is, we are spending money that doesnt exist in most Federal endeavors. Fact is, your fact isn't true. Pragmatic would be to spend only what we have. Fact is, there are multiple ways of doing that. Yet you seem to demand that only one of them can be considered. I keep seeing people say that it would be catastrophic, yet havent seen evidence as to why. Using Paul's proposed budget that balances by 2013, what would be "catastrophic"? Well, in 1937, the country was recovering from a depression. GDP had increased, in previous years, by 11, 9, and 13%. Unemployment had gone from 24%, to 17%. The Depression wasn't over, but it had been improving, for three years. The government cut spending by 7%. And by another 1% in '38. GDP went from growing by 11, 9, and 13%, to a growth of 5%, followed by a 3% drop. Unemployment went from decreasing (24% in 32, 22% in 34, 17% in 36) to increasing (19% in 38). Now, that's what happened when the government reduced spending by 7%, during the recovery from a depression. You want to cut spending, instantly, by 27%, and you want to pull a "haven't seen any evidence"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Really? How much revenue increases does this deal have in it? And how much spending cuts? How about the last deal that wasn't one sided? How much spending cuts, and how much revenue increases? The last deal was far from 1 sided. This deal, by virtue of the Bush Tax Cuts going away, would have significant increases. We both know that Larry and there is no guarantee that any future cuts will actually happen because they are being proposed as out year cuts. You can't guarantee that any of that will actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.