Originally posted by whodeyThe whole point is they did not cut US spending. They raised it by billions. I was watching the O Riely factor last night and now their saying it was raised by 400 billion. I don't know if that's true but I do know they raised spending by billions. And their trying to act like they lowered it by cutting aid to their poor. Their just using the tea party and conseratives to push their agenda and to find more money to push their war machine in the middle East. Obama didn't keep his promise to the people either. Their all a bunch of spinless wimps. Obama did nothing but cry about his mother when he was running for president about when she was dying and treated like crap by her insurance company and talked about making sure everyone will have good health care. Now I'm almost certain he will cave in and help the GOP cut medicare and social security to the old and disabled but lower taxes by 10% for the top 1% of the nation.
Either Boehner and the GOP should have kept his promise or he should never have made it. It's not really anyones problem but theirs.
So considering compromise, the Dems proposed $30 billion and the GOP $61 billion. They settled on $38.5 billion. So who made the bigger compromise?
Boehner and the GOP are a spinless bunch and not up to the task at hand ...[text shortened]... Really not much more should be expected of them, so if voters want more done they need to go!!
Originally posted by KingDavid403It's a terrible thing to be dependent on a bunch of unaccountable, fiscally irresponsible war mongering bureaurocrats.
The whole point is they did not cut US spending. They raised it by billions. I was watching the O Riely factor last night and now their saying it was raised by 400 billion. I don't know if that's true but I do know they raised spending by billions. And their trying to act like they lowered it by cutting aid to their poor. Their just using the tea p ...[text shortened]... social security to the old and disabled but lower taxes by 10% for the top 1% of the nation.
Originally posted by whodeyYou didn't answer my question, even though I tried to make it as simple as possible.
Either Boehner and the GOP should have kept his promise or he should never have made it. It's not really anyones problem but theirs.
So considering compromise, the Dems proposed $30 billion and the GOP $61 billion. They settled on $38.5 billion. So who made the bigger compromise?
Boehner and the GOP are a spinless bunch and not up to the task at hand ...[text shortened]... Really not much more should be expected of them, so if voters want more done they need to go!!
"Yes" or "no" -- should Republicans have refused to compromise, even if doing so would have led to a government shutdown?
Originally posted by wittywonkaRefused to compromise is a bit of a loaded word. If it was over budget issues, sure refuse! Shut down the government and save on payroll expenses.
You didn't answer my question, even though I tried to make it as simple as possible.
"Yes" or "no" -- should Republicans have refused to compromise, even if doing so would have led to a government shutdown?
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe GOP promised a $61 billion cut in spending. They could have compromised on what was cut, but they should have stuck to their guns even if it meant a shut down.
You didn't answer my question, even though I tried to make it as simple as possible.
"Yes" or "no" -- should Republicans have refused to compromise, even if doing so would have led to a government shutdown?
Originally posted by whodeyI think it's good of you to be willing to compromise on substance -- although your previous comments about wanting to swing left and right at the budget don't make that surprising -- but at what cost are you ultimately willing to prioritize ideology above reality?
The GOP promised a $61 billion cut in spending. They could have compromised on what was cut, but they should have stuck to their guns even if it meant a shut down.
Let alone the fact that government employees would be furloughed, which you still haven't addressed seriously, do you realize that shutting down the government would actually cost money?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/07/news/economy/government_shutdown_cost/index.htm
Would you really be willing to face those consequences to "send a message"?
Originally posted by wittywonkaIf I had made the pledge I would have tried to back it up. That is all I'm saying. Boehner should have known the consequences for making such a pledge half heartedly. Now he will have to answer for it.
I think it's good of you to be willing to compromise on substance -- although your previous comments about wanting to swing left and right at the budget don't make that surprising -- but at what cost are you ultimately willing to prioritize ideology above reality?
Let alone the fact that government employees would be furloughed, which you still haven't ...[text shortened]... st/index.htm
Would you really be willing to face those consequences to "send a message"?
Originally posted by whodeyDid Boehner not "try to back up" his promise? What should he have done to have "tried harder"? You still think he should have wasted money and political capital by allowing a shutdown?
If I had made the pledge I would have tried to back it up. That is all I'm saying. Boehner should have known the consequences for making such a pledge half heartedly. Now he will have to answer for it.
Your answer seems to have less conviction and clarity.
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaLet's throw some numbers in here for perspective.
Did Boehner not "try to back up" his promise? What should he have done to have "tried harder"? You still think he should have wasted money and political capital by allowing a shutdown?
Your answer seems to have less conviction and clarity.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boehner-obama-deal-leaves-fy11-spending
On Friday night, Boehner and Reid released a joint press statement saying that together with President Obama they had reached an agreement to cut spending in fiscal year 2011 to a level $78.5 billion below the president’s original budget request. “We will cut $78.5 billion below the President’s 2011 budget proposal,” they said.
President Obama’s 2011 budget proposal asked for $3.834 trillion in spending. Subtracting $78.5 billion from that leaves $3.7555 trillion in spending.
In fiscal 2008, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the federal government spent $2.982544 trillion--or $772.95 billion less than the $3.7555 trillion the Boehner-Obama deal will allow the federal government to spend this year.
That $773 billion in spending that the federal government will do this year over and above the federal spending level of 2008 equals 98 percent of the $787 billion stimulus signed by President Obama in February 2000—on the premise that it was a one-time, short-term spending escalation needed to pump up the economy in a time of recession.
In other words, for all the talk of cuts, it appears we ended up with another stimulus bill on the sly, hand delivered by Boehner. We right-wing, swivel-eyed, mouth-breathing extremists were hoping for more of a Chris Christie approach to the threat of government shut down. Which you can sample here (fast forward to about 3:14 for the good stuff).
&feature=player_embedded#at=305
Originally posted by SleepyguySpot on!!! The problem is that the term "stimulus" is toxic, so now they have to hide future stimulus programs such as this.
Let's throw some numbers in here for perspective.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boehner-obama-deal-leaves-fy11-spending
[quote]On Friday night, Boehner and Reid released a joint press statement saying that together with President Obama they had reached an agreement to cut spending in fiscal year 2011 to a level $78.5 billion below the president’s ori ...[text shortened]... r the good stuff).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOTvhfOk6vc&feature=player_embedded#at=305
Originally posted by whodeyGood. Maybe the fanatics will realize the limits of their considerable influence in politics.
If I had made the pledge I would have tried to back it up. That is all I'm saying. Boehner should have known the consequences for making such a pledge half heartedly. Now he will have to answer for it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFanatics? You must mean the fanatics who admit that the current fiscal direction of the US is not sustainable, but do nothing. You must mean the fanatics who appoint economic Congressional experts to study the debt crisis and ignore their dire warnings.
Good. Maybe the fanatics will realize the limits of their considerable influence in politics.
I prefer the term moron to fanatic.
Originally posted by whodeyYes, the only way to bring about effective change is to do so as quickly as possible and with an all-or-nothing mentality. At least the change will be ideologically sound -- practical repercussions are just collateral damage.
Fanatics? You must mean the fanatics who admit that the current fiscal direction of the US is not sustainable, but do nothing. You must mean the fanatics who appoint economic Congressional experts to study the debt crisis and ignore their dire warnings.
I prefer the term moron to fanatic.