In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Casey Mulligan: How ObamaCare Wrecks the Work Ethic The health-care law, starting Jan. 1, will begin driving up marginal tax rates—well above 50% for many.
I suppose one remedy would be to tweak payroll taxes.
In the article, it states it as an "index", implying there is some weighting. There's also a large question mark about how he determines "average". Looks like one of those "figures don't lie, but liars figure" situations.
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
When I talk about cuts, I mean real cuts, no new spending. We ran a deficit that got worse every year, except for this one (thanks tax increases!). But it's still a deficit. His budgets were so bad the Senate rejected them. There have been no real spending cuts... We are in dire straights and need more than a penny here or penny there. As well as real welfare reform. When the government itself says the path is unsustainable, you have a problem. Obama doesn't treat it as a serious problem.
And Reagan tried to cut domestic spending, but when the Democrats held him up, he negotiated with them to get much of what he wanted in other areas (but overall, domestic spending was pretty much flat during his time in office). His biggest regret was the debt that was left when he was done. Obama shows no real penchant for even wanting to cut (besides the military, of course.)
On October 04 2013 17:43 Introvert wrote: When I talk about cuts, I mean real cuts, no new spending. We ran a deficit that got worse every year, except for this one (thanks tax increases!). But it's still a deficit. His budgets were so bad the Senate rejected them. There have been no real spending cuts... We are in dire straights and need more than a penny here or penny there. As well as real welfare reform. When the government itself says the path is unsustainable, you have a problem. Obama doesn't treat it as a serious problem.
And Reagan tried to cut domestic spending, but when the Democrats held him up, he negotiated with them to get much of what he wanted in other areas (but overall, domestic spending was pretty much flat during his time in office). His biggest regret was the debt that was left when he was done. Obama shows no real penchant for even wanting to cut (besides the military, of course.)
To be fair, military spending is more than all other forms of discretionary spending *combined*.
This might help put things in perspective. Sure, he *could* start by reducing Veterans' benefits, Science, Energy and Environment, etc. but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the military. If you're actually serious about making cuts, the military certainly shouldn't be the only target, but it must be on the table, which is something the Republicans have been rather hypocritical about.
In addition, I think it's reasonable to think that the military could survive cuts more than other aspects of government could. I think most people agree that we don't actually need hundreds of military bases around the world, for example. If you think it's a fair price to pay for global military dominance, that has some validity to it, but you can't at the same time claim you're about "small government" and "reducing spending". (not to say that I approve of Democratic ideals all the time, but definitely more than the Republican stance on balancing the budget)
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Daily military budget is more than NASA's total budget.
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Because that's discretionary spending, not mandatory. That chart is much different.
It ALL needs to be cut or reformed, like I said. We CAN'T pay for it all.
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. Can't seem to remember which party was in the Whitehouse then....? And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Because that's discretionary spending, not mandatory. That chart is much different.
It ALL needs to be cut or reformed, like I said. We CAN'T pay for it all.
gn
Very true. The three biggest expenditures in the United States are the military, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. And as opinion polling and elections have shown time and again, all three are wildly popular. Everyone wants to reduce the deficit, but no one wants to touch programs that would actually make a difference. Is it any surprise that we consistently spend more than we take in, then?
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
ah, one more thing before bed (I have work in the morning TT)
The budget adopted before he comes into office is the largest deficit in history at that time. (which he supported as a senator). So yes, you went from the largest increases in history to the smallest, because RIGHT BEFORE he got into office, it was MASSIVE. And yet, he is still responsible for 3-4 (it's late, I don't recall which one exactly) of the highest deficits in history (2010-2013?). So as a %, it's small. As an actual number? Massive, with no appreciable decrease until he gets his tax hike.
Says the debt Bush had racked up was "unpatriotic." Yet here we are, with 6 Trillion plus that he has added, large % increase year by year or not. No serious attempts at addressing it, except for the tax increase he ALREADY got.
This is all number manipulation, my friend, and you are falling for it (as is shown by quoting the whitehouse page, of all places.) He got his tax hike, but we are STILL ADDING to the debt. He has no seriously considered plan for addressing that.
And I did NOT support the massive Bush spending (there is a reason the democrats didn't object to his budget policies).
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Because that's discretionary spending, not mandatory. That chart is much different.
It ALL needs to be cut or reformed, like I said. We CAN'T pay for it all.
gn
Very true. The three biggest expenditures in the United States are the military, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. And as opinion polling and elections have shown time and again, all three are wildly popular. Everyone wants to reduce the deficit, but no one wants to touch programs that would actually make a difference. Is it any surprise that we consistently spend more than we take in, then?
Of course not. I fear that no one will fix it and it will all come crashing down one day.
On October 04 2013 10:45 aksfjh wrote: [quote] That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
ah, one more thing before bed (I have work in the morning TT)
The budget adopted before he comes into office is the largest deficit in history at that time. (which he supported as a senator). So yes, you went from the largest increases in history to the smallest, because RIGHT BEFORE he got into office, it was MASSIVE. And yet, he is still responsible for 3-4 (it's late, I don't recall which one exactly) of the highest deficits in history (2010-2013?). So as a %, it's small. As an actual number? Massive, with no appreciable decrease until he gets his tax hike.
Says the debt Bush had racked up was "unpatriotic." Yet here we are, with 6 Trillion plus that he has added, large % increase year by year or not. No serious attempts at addressing it, except for the tax increase he ALREADY got.
This is all number manipulation, my friend, and you are falling for it (as is shown by quoting the whitehouse page, of all places.) He got his tax hike, but we are STILL ADDING to the debt. He has no seriously considered plan for addressing that.
And I did NOT support the massive Bush spending (there is a reason the democrats didn't object to his budget policies).
I don't think we are going to rehash the financial collapse here where everyone had to vote for something no one really wanted to do. Financial institutions among other things leveraged themselves beyond reason and then lost huge on their bets. But because we had allowed them to get to where they were, the common economic consensus was we had no choice to bail them out in combination with a pretty huge decline in GDP resulted in the Deficit. No reasonable person will tell you what he inherited did not contribute massively to why he would have to keep 'budgets' at levels that would be unhealthy in the long run.
I think if predictions and rhetoric surrounding 'Obama's spending' were even remotely accurate we wouldn't be seeing a decline in the deficit at all.
On October 04 2013 10:45 aksfjh wrote: [quote] That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
ah, one more thing before bed (I have work in the morning TT)
The budget adopted before he comes into office is the largest deficit in history at that time. (which he supported as a senator). So yes, you went from the largest increases in history to the smallest, because RIGHT BEFORE he got into office, it was MASSIVE.
There is a reason it was massive. Can you think of something pretty important that happened in 2008-2009? Here's a hint: it affected the economy.
"House Speaker John Boehner is telling fellow Republicans he won't allow the United States to default on its debt — even if it takes Democratic votes to do so."
"Boehner has been meeting with Republicans privately as he and other GOP leaders try to come up with a plan to end the partial government shutdown and raise the debt limit"
Looks like the Congressional Chaplain's prayer worked in one way or another " “Have mercy upon us, oh God, and save us from the madness,”...“Deliver us from the hypocrisy of attempting to sound reasonable while being unreasonable,”
... kind of obscures the fact that he's largely responsible for this mess. Seriously, just bring up the clean CR and let Congress vote. The only reason he hasn't done it yet is that he's in it for himself. It's really not that hard - practically speaking he's not really Speaker at all anyway, at this point.
On October 04 2013 18:55 Funnytoss wrote: "he won't allow the United States to default"
... kind of obscures the fact that he's largely responsible for this mess. Seriously, just bring up the clean CR and let Congress vote. The only reason he hasn't done it yet is that he's in it for himself. It's really not that hard - practically speaking he's not really Speaker at all anyway, at this point.
Well he can force a vote and that's what is most important at this point. Obama will give him something, maybe medical device tax but more likely things not related to the PPACA more like the Pipeline, Maybe some more spending cuts, or whatever it is the Republicans want nowadays.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k548Uj0.png)
829
251
208
107
70
3370
240
170
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IPH7h3BsEI4/Uk0cigkb2EI/AAAAAAAABlY/2hETH85ABY0/s400/marginal+tax+rate+under+obamacare.jpg)
