GOP rejects cut trades

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 3:03:46 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Jul 16, 2011 17:14:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

nice little condescending bitchslap to end your post. like that does anyone a lot of good. don't know why conservatives have to belittle liberals all the time. it is not going to bring them around, you know?

but you are wrong about revenues. declining revenues are a big part of the problem. the historical average for revenues is about 18% of GDP we are currently at 14.4%, which is extremely low. the difference is about $500B in budgetary terms, or about 1/3 of the deficit. don't discount it. it is a disadvantage that Bush never had to face.

it would be a shame if people didn't recognize these facts, but i suspect they won't. they are so used to being lied to, they will believe anything.

Liberals need to be bitch slapped since it's their foolishness that has brought this nation to its knees.

what liberals? liberals like Jefferson? liberals like Lippman?

Right next to them should be the MSM who covers up this fact.

the MSM is corporatist, not liberal. but that is another discussion.

Regarding declining revenue, I can check some revenue numbers BUT you have failed to notice or comment upon:

1. this supposed drop is revenue is clearly NOT due to tax rates since the tax rates are roughly the same as they were with Bush yet Bush, by your own words, did not have to deal with this.

according to OTA Paper 81, there was a revenue loss due to the tax cuts. the rest of the revenue decline was due to the mild recession we had following 911.

2. Even accepting a possibly 500 billion falloff (I don't),

your acceptance or rejection will not affect the validity of the claim. just look it up.

there is still 1.1 trillion overspending issue and it can be laid squarely at Obama's feet.

that was not true in 2009. half of the budget was Bush's. 1/3 of the shortfall was due to economic downturn. that leaves Obama on the hook for $400B. but remember, FY2009 was almost half over before he got his chance to spend our money.

5 trillion in debt since he has come into office and we have NOTHING to show for it!

i think you are cherry picking the data, again. FY 2010 is not yet officially over. until it is, we don't know what the tally is- but it is probably closer to $2T spent, if we are talking on a cash basis.

3. Regarding being condescending to liberals, hey I'm just following May Allah Bless His Name Barack Hussien Obama who betlittles EVERYONE who disagrees with him or comes into his crosshairs:
1. Doctors are hacking off limbs for more money
2. Those evil mean bankers are the ones who destroyed the economy as opposed to the DEMOCRATS and ACORN who strongarmed those banks into those loans
3. People who are sick of government spending and taxation are just racists
4. the GOP who is falsely blamed for the bad economy has to get "in the back" since Obama is driving
5. He has his foot on the throat of BP and he's gonna kick some ass and bring a gun to a knife fight around the same time that he invites to the White House a rapper who wants to kill cops.

i generally try to live up to the examples of those i respect, rather than down to those i despise, but to each their own.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I guess I'm just not a "new millenium" kind of guy. I look at the record, and while the record of BOTH parties is poor on spending, the Democrat controlled Congress along with President Obama are by far the most aggregious offenders in history. As I have pointed out, and you refused to respond to-- they have spent more than every President and Congress from George Washington, to George W. Bush...combined.

Democrats have proposed this very compromise-- spending cuts in exchange for tax increases-- three times in recent history, and all three times we got tax increases and NO SPENDING cuts.

And your response was that my point was up there with "Well, Democrats founded the KKK after all". Sorry, but that is true deflection. You failed to refute anything I wrote and instead fell back on the "both parties do it" line. Well, I've acknowledged as much. So, now it's up to you to come up with something substantive-- or make accusations you can't support and bow out of the discussion. It's weak, but if that's your choice- you're welcome to it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 12:58:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I guess I'm just not a "new millenium" kind of guy. I look at the record, and while the record of BOTH parties is poor on spending, the Democrat controlled Congress along with President Obama are by far the most aggregious offenders in history.

then you are not looking very deeply.

Bush's 2009 budget was $1.2 in the red when Obama took over. that is about 8% of GDP and the worst since WW2.

but even that budget was not the worst. the worst budgets BY FAR were in the great depression.

a student of last centuries history should know that.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 12:58:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I guess I'm just not a "new millenium" kind of guy. I look at the record, and while the record of BOTH parties is poor on spending, the Democrat controlled Congress along with President Obama are by far the most aggregious offenders in history. As I have pointed out, and you refused to respond to-- they have spent more than every President and Congress from George Washington, to George W. Bush...combined.

Democrats have proposed this very compromise-- spending cuts in exchange for tax increases-- three times in recent history, and all three times we got tax increases and NO SPENDING cuts.

even if this were true, how would you know that you would get spending cuts WITHOUT tax increases, using the same logic?

and if this is all true, why should either side even bother?

the hopelessness of your outlook is thoroughly depressing, and unactionable.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 16, 2011 8:43:15 GMT -5 @patstab said:

Of course, only repubs are people of good faith, never lie, and are thinking only of the American people.

If that were so the prior 8 years would have made the country boom and not left a deficit that we are still trying to recover from.

Thought all those bush tax cuts were going to make the employer jump out with tons of new jobs?

And Obama traded extended UE benefits for extending those worthless cuts.

There's no evidence Democrats are trying to help the country 'recover' from anything. They haven't slowed down the spending of the over-spending Republicans- they've massively accelerated it. They haven't de-regulated and over-burdened business community, they've relentlessly attacked small business. They didn't listen to a public fed up with the mess in Washington, Democrats showed utter contempt for the people and instead rammed an immoral and unConstitutional government takeover of healthcare down our throats.

This is the old, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" promise. President Obama wants a blank check to borrow $1.67 trillion in THIS fiscal year in exchange for phony cuts he'll never make of $4 trillion over the next 10 years. The Republicans should take his $4 trillion in cuts and front-load them. We'll take $1.67 NOW, and the other $2.33 trillion over 10 years. This guy is LYING.

He's acting like a toddler who is being told no, and Republicans must continue to hold their ground as the only semblence of adulthood in DC right now.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 17, 2011 13:05:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 17, 2011 12:58:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I guess I'm just not a "new millenium" kind of guy. I look at the record, and while the record of BOTH parties is poor on spending, the Democrat controlled Congress along with President Obama are by far the most aggregious offenders in history. As I have pointed out, and you refused to respond to-- they have spent more than every President and Congress from George Washington, to George W. Bush...combined.

Democrats have proposed this very compromise-- spending cuts in exchange for tax increases-- three times in recent history, and all three times we got tax increases and NO SPENDING cuts.

even if this were true, how would you know that you would get spending cuts WITHOUT tax increases, using the same logic?

and if this is all true, why should either side even bother?

the hopelessness of your outlook is thoroughly depressing, and unactionable.

The economy cannot absorb tax increases right now. The government hasn't earned the priviledge of asking us for more money right now- and it'll take years of fiscal restraint before they have.

If you send it, they will spend it (and borrow more to boot).

The time to cut off Washington, D.C. is before our creditors do. The time to starve the beast is NOW.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 13:16:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 16, 2011 8:43:15 GMT -5 @patstab said:

Of course, only repubs are people of good faith, never lie, and are thinking only of the American people.

If that were so the prior 8 years would have made the country boom and not left a deficit that we are still trying to recover from.

Thought all those bush tax cuts were going to make the employer jump out with tons of new jobs?

And Obama traded extended UE benefits for extending those worthless cuts.

There's no evidence Democrats are trying to help the country 'recover' from anything. They haven't slowed down the spending of the over-spending Republicans- they've massively accelerated it. They haven't de-regulated and over-burdened business community, they've relentlessly attacked small business. They didn't listen to a public fed up with the mess in Washington, Democrats showed utter contempt for the people and instead rammed an immoral and unConstitutional government takeover of healthcare down our throats.

This is the old, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" promise. President Obama wants a blank check to borrow $1.67 trillion in THIS fiscal year in exchange for phony cuts he'll never make of $4 trillion over the next 10 years. The Republicans should take his $4 trillion in cuts and front-load them. We'll take $1.67 NOW, and the other $2.33 trillion over 10 years. This guy is LYING.

He's acting like a toddler who is being told no, and Republicans must continue to hold their ground as the only semblence of adulthood in DC right now.

i see, the petulant disregard for the immediate economic future of the US is "adulthood", and the idea that both parties should concede something for the good of the nation is "childishness".

got it.

[ugonow]

The economy cannot absorb tax increases right now. The government hasn't earned the priviledge of asking us for more money right now- and it'll take years of fiscal restraint before they have.

If you send it, they will spend it (and borrow more to boot).

So Palin,Paul Ryan,Pawlenty,etc were all liars when they said we can't afford these loopholes and subsidies earlier?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 13:19:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 17, 2011 13:05:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

even if this were true, how would you know that you would get spending cuts WITHOUT tax increases, using the same logic?

and if this is all true, why should either side even bother?

the hopelessness of your outlook is thoroughly depressing, and unactionable.

The economy cannot absorb tax increases right now.

this statement is about as logically valid (and untrue) as "the country cannot absorb a spending cut right now". soon the Democrats are going to be saying that, Paul. just watch.

i think it is time for everyone to man up and admit that the economy can absorb both. strike that. it MUST absorb both, if we are to ever get back to a balanced budget.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 13:19:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 17, 2011 13:05:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

even if this were true, how would you know that you would get spending cuts WITHOUT tax increases, using the same logic?

and if this is all true, why should either side even bother?

the hopelessness of your outlook is thoroughly depressing, and unactionable.

The government hasn't earned the priviledge of asking us for more money right now

no more than you have earned your first amendment rights right now, Paul.

but fortunately, we have the constitution and the many amendments to rely upon for such matters.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Shows what you know. My rights as an individual are unalienable. The federal government's power is specifically enumerated and allocated temporarily on the assumption that government has been instituted to secure our rights.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Hell, even Obama recognizes the Constitution is a bill of "no rights" when it comes to what government is permitted to do. Frustrates the hell out of him, but he at least knows it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 13:29:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Shows what you know. My rights as an individual are unalienable. The federal government's power is specifically enumerated and allocated temporarily on the assumption that government has been instituted to secure our rights.

yeah, that's right, Paul. i am a dumbass. that is the answer for everything. you know it all, and i know nothing.

why do you even bother with morons like me?

so you read up on the "social contract" yet? it was a prominent notion of that radical communist Locke.

[cereb]

"So, now it's up to you to come up with something substantive-- or make accusations you can't support and bow out of the discussion. It's weak, but if that's your choice- you're welcome to it. "


Thanks, I think I'll pass. I know a pointless discussion when I see one.


Enjoy.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 13:30:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Hell, even Obama recognizes the Constitution is a bill of "no rights" when it comes to what government is permitted to do. Frustrates the hell out of him, but he at least knows it.

nice red herring, Paul. but i never said that the government had rights. the government is an organ of the people, and is ENABLED to certain tasks, which are outlined in the constitution.

i really like how, rather than debating a point, you resort to going after people personally. that is awesome. did you learn that in church today, or did you come up with that all on your own?