TheHill.com: Boehner: *Mr President, help stop automatic cuts to Defense Spending*

[Larry]

Did the Dems want over 1 trillion in taxes> Yes or no.

No.

[ABQCOWBOY]

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?

The cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, I believe, happened because of Obamacare. They were not part of the actual cuts proposed by the debt ceiling negotiations. I don't know about Social Security. I guess I would have to understand exactly what those were before I could comment on that.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 11:52 AM ----------

No.

I have a feeling that this is going to be another semantics issue.

[Larry]

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.

Ah, got it.

Future spending cuts, which were agreed to, might not happen. But repealing the Bush tax cuts, well, that's a big tax increase, which the GOP agreed to.

[SnyderShrugged]

Fact is, your fact isn't true.

Fact is, there are multiple ways of doing that. Yet you seem to demand that only one of them can be considered.

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"?

How can you reasonably state that we are spending money we dont have when we see the tragic debt levels that we hold? That doesnt make any sense at all. And Yes, absolutely, cuts down to 2006 levels shouldnt be catastrophic at all, since unemployment was an awesome 4.something %. It wasnt even that long ago. Evidence is on my side in this.

[Jumbo]

A pox on all of them

I do have a special on poxes, for anyone interested. I never really invested in them before I become an ES Mod Nazi. But working with them as a commodity (poxes) does appeal to my heritage and upbringing.

[Larry]

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?

I haven't seen any actual, hard, verifiable information as to whet either side may have proposed. You got something to support that claim?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ah, got it.

Future spending cuts, which were agreed to, might not happen. But repealing the Bush tax cuts, well, that's a big tax increase, which the GOP agreed to.

That's baked in the deal. I agree but the thing that I think is not accurate is to say that the GOP would not agree to tax increases because the Bush Tax cuts would essentially amount to just that. We may be arguing a point that we both agree on. I don't know.

[Bang]

If Obama so much as comes to the table, then they'll demand goodies from him, and if he agrees, then they'll demand more goodies, and they;ll keep moving the goalposts until Obama says "no". Then they'll announce that the entire problem is that Obama won't compromise.

Interesting that was exactly how Adolf Hitler described his negotiation tactics.

"Demand more than they can possibly give, and when they give it, take it and immediately demand more."

Ah well, disturbing similarities are verboten.

~Bang

[Larry]

How can you reasonably state that we are spending money we dont have when we see the tragic debt levels that we hold? That doesnt make any sense at all. And Yes, absolutely, cuts down to 2006 levels shouldnt be catastrophic at all, since unemployment was an awesome 4.something %. It wasnt even that long ago. Evidence is on my side in this.

I've already pointed to, I believe, the only case in the history of our nation when we cut covernment spending (by 7%) during the recovery from a depression.

And your response is to assume that if we cut spending to 06 levels, then the US economy will be identical to what it was in 06?

This may come as a shock to you, but

1) There was a bit of a change in the economy, shortly after 06.

2) Cutting the budget does not cause a time warp to appear.

3) The federal budget in 06, hadn't been cut by 30%.

Heck, I've got an idea: Let's repeal the Bush tax cuts. I can prove that it will instantly make the economy better, because before the Bush tax cuts, the economy was great, and the government was running a surplus. n fact, if we repeal the Bush tax cuts, then the wars won't have happened, the Space Shuttle will still be flying, the twin towers will reappear, New Orleans won't have to be rebuilt, and none of us will have ever heard of Sarah Palin or Justin Beiber.

Evidence is on my side in this.

[SnyderShrugged]

I've already pointed to, I believe, the only case in the history of our nation when we cut covernment spending (by 7%) during the recovery from a depression.

And your response is to assume that if we cut spending to 06 levels, then the US economy will be identical to what it was in 06?

This may come as a shock to you, but

1) There was a bit of a change in the economy, shortly after 06.

2) Cutting the budget does not cause a time warp to appear.

3) The federal budget in 06, hadn't been cut by 30%.

Heck, I've got an idea: Let's repeal the Bush tax cuts. I can prove that it will instantly make the economy better, because before the Bush tax cuts, the economy was great, and the government was running a surplus. n fact, if we repeal the Bush tax cuts, then the wars won't have happened, the Space Shuttle will still be flying, the twin towers will reappear, New Orleans won't have to be rebuilt, and none of us will have ever heard of Sarah Palin or Justin Beiber.

Evidence is on my side in this.

My response is simple, spending increased dramatically since 2006 and it cant be denied that spending is a significant problem because it causes debt. If debt therefore is a problem (and one would be stupid to make a claim that it isnt), logic would dictate that to address that debt, we must first stop the bleeding and then address the gaps.

Are you proposing no reductions in these ungodly spending levels?

[Madison Redskin]

That's baked in the deal. I agree but the thing that I think is not accurate is to say that the GOP would not agree to tax increases because the Bush Tax cuts would essentially amount to just that. We may be arguing a point that we both agree on. I don't know.

Can you provide a link to an article that states the GOP members of the Supercommittee offered to let the Bush tax cuts expire?

[Larry]

My response is simple, spending increased dramatically since 2006

Yes, it did.

and it cant be denied that spending is a significant problem because it causes debt.

More of your untrue spin.

1) Spending is half of what causes a deficit.

2) And you have not even attempted to link "debt" and "problem".

(Yes, I do think that our deficit is a problem. But it's a "down the road" problem. It's like Social Security running out of money, 20 years from now. It's something that needs to be dealt with. And it's going to be hard, and it's going to take years of work. That does not in any way mean that the planet will be destroyed if it isn't completely balanced, entirely through spending cuts only (and I'll point out that the plan you keep pointing at, doesn't even to that. What it does is to pass more, bigger, tax cuts, and then slash spending enough to pay for them, too), by next Tuesday.)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Can you provide a link to an article that states the GOP members of the Supercommittee offered to let the Bush tax cuts expire?

The Bush Tax Cuts are already agreed to . They have been since like 2010. The Supercommittee had the Bush Tax Cuts on the table as part of the negotiation. Failure to come to an agreement means that the Bush Tax Cuts will expire in 2012. This represents a significant tax increase and all members of the committee know this.

[Madison Redskin]

The Bush Tax Cuts are already agreed to . They have been since like 2010. The Supercommittee had the Bush Tax Cuts on the table as part of the negotiation. Failure to come to an agreement means that the Bush Tax Cuts will expire in 2012. This represents a significant tax increase and all members of the committee know this.

You and I both know that a debt deal will be done well before the Bush tax cuts expire, notwithstanding the current state of DC politics. And, at no point during the Supercommittee talks, has the GOP offered to let the Bush tax cuts expire in exchange for concessions by the Democrats.

[AsburySkinsFan]

First and formost, overseas entanglements.

Gotta be more specific here.

If you mean Bush war I and II then ok, but that won't balance the budget.

If you mean foreign aide, then alone doesn't balance the budget either....and I won't even mention what it does to our foreign relations.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You and I both know that a debt deal will be done well before the Bush tax cuts expire, notwithstanding the current state of DC politics. And, at no point during the Supercommittee talks, has the GOP offered to let the Bush tax cuts expire in exchange for concessions by the Democrats.

No, I don't know that. In fact, the President has said that he will veto any plan that extends so I don't think that this is a given at all. The GOP and the President agreed to terms on the Bush Tax cuts some time ago. It has been reported that this is one of the options that was offered in exchange for other cuts but I can not provide you with any detail as I do not believe that the committee ever submitted any detail in writing. For all we know, all of these things happened on both sides or none of them did. However, we do know that both sides agreed to the current Bush Tax Cuts. I don't believe that this is a point that can be questioned.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 01:02 PM ----------

Gotta be more specific here.

If you mean Bush war I and II then ok, but that won't balance the budget.

If you mean foreign aide, then alone doesn't balance the budget either....and I won't even mention what it does to our foreign relations.

I think you should probably add whats going on in Libya as well. Yeah, we are still there and we are still executing missions.

[Madison Redskin]

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?

chirp......chirp......chirp.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 03:13 PM ----------

No, I don't know that. In fact, the President has said that he will veto any plan that extends so I don't think that this is a given at all. The GOP and the President agreed to terms on the Bush Tax cuts some time ago. It has been reported that this is one of the options that was offered in exchange for other cuts but I can not provide you with any detail as I do not believe that the committee ever submitted any detail in writing. For all we know, all of these things happened on both sides or none of them did. However, we do know that both sides agreed to the current Bush Tax Cuts. I don't believe that this is a point that can be questioned.

Well, I'm not going to argue the parties agreed to extend the tax cuts through 2012. However, I am certainly not going to agree the GOP has offered to let the cuts expire in exchange for other concessions. You can speculate all you like, but the only deals the GOP have publicly offered have contemplated that the Bush tax cuts will expire. So, you'll have to forgive me if I laugh at claims the GOP made a concession to the Dems by virtue of their offer to accept $300 billion in tax hikes, if exchange for $2.5 trillion in tax cuts AND spending cuts.

[SnyderShrugged]

Gotta be more specific here.

If you mean Bush war I and II then ok, but that won't balance the budget.

If you mean foreign aide, then alone doesn't balance the budget either....and I won't even mention what it does to our foreign relations.

Mainly those are the two he means )Though I would call them Bush I and II and then all Obama (The Nobel PEACE prize winner)'s wars.

Of course that alone doesnt balance the budget, but it the most ripe area for savings opportunity and a healthy dose of common sense too,.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 03:36 PM ----------

Yes, it did.

More of your untrue spin.

1) Spending is half of what causes a deficit.

2) And you have not even attempted to link "debt" and "problem".

(Yes, I do think that our deficit is a problem. But it's a "down the road" problem. It's like Social Security running out of money, 20 years from now. It's something that needs to be dealt with. And it's going to be hard, and it's going to take years of work. That does not in any way mean that the planet will be destroyed if it isn't completely balanced, entirely through spending cuts only (and I'll point out that the plan you keep pointing at, doesn't even to that. What it does is to pass more, bigger, tax cuts, and then slash spending enough to pay for them, too), by next Tuesday.)

I KNOW you didnt just accuse me of Lying, that would be an unfair and inaccurate assertion, I'll leave it at that.

Spending is actually ALL of what causes a deficit as you couldnt have one if the spending didnt occur. I understand that you feel spending is a need so you will not acknowledge this, but the fact remains that if spending were not increased in good times like it did, we would not be facing this issue, regardless of Bush Tax cuts (which account for only a potion of the increase in deficit.

Lastly, I am not even as concerned over deficit as I am with debt. If the issue were merely one of balancing taxces vs spending, the problem wouldnt be nearly as dangerous as it is.

[ABQCOWBOY]

chirp......chirp......chirp.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 03:13 PM ----------

Well, I'm not going to argue the parties agreed to extend the tax cuts through 2012. However, I am certainly not going to agree the GOP has offered to let the cuts expire in exchange for other concessions. You can speculate all you like, but the only deals the GOP have publicly offered have contemplated that the Bush tax cuts will expire. So, you'll have to forgive me if I laugh at claims the GOP made a concession to the Dems by virtue of their offer to accept $300 billion in tax hikes, if exchange for $2.5 trillion in tax cuts AND spending cuts.

You know, I guess I just don't get it. That's not a shocker, there are a great many things I don't get. This entire pain point over paying for increases in spending I don't get. The Left seems to get angry over this concept and I do not understand why. It was Democratic Legislation that basically passed law that said any new spending would have to be paid for with cuts in other areas. Why would you pass that law if you didn't actually want that as a standard?

Doesn't matter. What will happen will happen.

Here is an article that outlines 800 Billion in new spending revenue. I don't know if it's entirely factual as the committee never actually published anything or even discussed much of anything other then political points they wanted to get out and into the press.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/11/boehner-open-revenue-increases-but-calls-for-significant-entitlement-reforms-part-debt-plan/9EYSB65zcsU7qwZFeYlHGM/index.html

[Larry]

Spending is actually ALL of what causes a deficit as you couldnt have one if the spending didnt occur.

Really? I could have SWORN that the formula for calculating the amount of the deficit had TWO numbers in it.

Learn something new every day.

[SnyderShrugged]

Really? I could have SWORN that the formula for calculating the amount of the deficit had TWO numbers in it.

Learn something new every day.

Yet you still cannot discount my point on spending. Glad I could Learn ya!

[mcsluggo]

How can you reasonably state that we are spending money we dont have when we see the tragic debt levels that we hold? That doesnt make any sense at all. And Yes, absolutely, cuts down to 2006 levels shouldnt be catastrophic at all, since unemployment was an awesome 4.something %. It wasnt even that long ago. Evidence is on my side in this.

the last part has about as much relevence as stating "2006 was also the last time that the seahawks made it to the superbowl"--- unless you are TRYING to point out that a fiscal contraction will be much more difficult with unemplyment already above the "full employment" level? (somehow, i don't THINK that is the point you are tryig to make... right?)

[Jeeb]

But I thought Government spending didn't create jobs.

[SnyderShrugged]

the last part has about as much relevence as stating "2006 was also the last time that the seahawks made it to the superbowl"--- unless you are TRYING to point out fiscal acontraction will be much more difficult with unemplyment above the "full employment" level? (somehow, i don't THINK that is the point you are tryig to make)

I'll just disagree. I think its very relevant, (but not worth arguing about at this point since we just see it differently I guess)

[Larry]

Yet you still cannot discount my point on spending. Glad I could Learn ya!

I also cannot disprove the assertion that debt cannot exist if debt is illegal.

That doesn't mean that the fact that debt is legal is the only reason debt exists. Or that the only way debt can possibly be reduced us to make debt illegal.