Harry Reid Loses His Mind In Public

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

If you suspected the whiny-voiced, hunch-backed senior citizen Senator from Searchlight, Nevada was senile, today he proved you right.

"[It's] time we return to the type of fiscal discipline that democrats brought to Washington in the 90¡äs when democrats in the Congress and White House balanced the budget and used the surplus to do what Mr. President? To pay down the debt," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the Senate floor today.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/01/harry_reid_return_to_type_of_fiscal_discipline_under_the_democrats.html

Reminiscing about the 1990s, Harry Reid claimed it was Democrats in Congress¡¯s ¡°fiscal discipline¡± that achieved a balanced budget.

The budget was balanced because the Republicans who controlled the congress forced then-President Clinton to limit spending ¨C just as they are doing now with President Obama.

And the budget wasn't even expected to be balanced; it was the unexpected surge of revenues due to the Reagan-legacy economy that allowed money to come into Washington faster than liberals like Reid could spend it.

[Deleted]

Well, he may have gone crazy, but if he is finally getting to a conservative POV, good for him. I have NEVER understood how a Mormon could be liberal. Must be a real mind fart.

[jkapp]

Jul 1, 2011 13:13:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

If you suspected the whiny-voiced, hunch-backed senior citizen Senator from Searchlight, Nevada was senile, today he proved you right.

"[It's] time we return to the type of fiscal discipline that democrats brought to Washington in the 90¡äs when democrats in the Congress and White House balanced the budget and used the surplus to do what Mr. President? To pay down the debt," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the Senate floor today.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/01/harry_reid_return_to_type_of_fiscal_discipline_under_the_democrats.html

Reminiscing about the 1990s, Harry Reid claimed it was Democrats in Congress¡¯s ¡°fiscal discipline¡± that achieved a balanced budget.

The budget was balanced because the Republicans who controlled the congress forced then-President Clinton to limit spending ¨C just as they are doing now with President Obama.

And the budget wasn't even expected to be balanced; it was the unexpected surge of revenues due to the Reagan-legacy economy that allowed money to come into Washington faster than liberals like Reid could spend it.

He really is senile if he thinks the debt was ever paid down at any point in history...I remember them trying to decide what they would do when the FORECASTED surplus ever occurred (however, I don't think paying down the debt was very popular) - however that fantasy surplus was never actually achieved because the economy tanked during the end of Clinton's last term due to the Tech bust.

[henryclay]

Did anybody listen? I mean really listen?

He said what Republicans have been saying all along. He said, "we must cut spending, we all know that". The problem with it was that in the rest of that breath he also said that, (apparently in the mind of the Democrats), current tax breaks are a form of spending, so the thing to do is to cut out the tax breaks.

Last week Obama jumped on corporate jets, yet as I recall things, two years ago he was offering the owners stimulus money so their companies could stay afloat. (side note: Does he include Al Gore and his Gulfstream jet?)

Tax breaks are a form of spending that must be eliminated, folks.

[Deleted]

Not sure if it makes me a fake conservative to say it, but I DO agree that there are a lot of BS tax breaks that need to go away. For one thing, we are enabling the welfare state by giving them credits that keep them from getting ahead. Why should they work, or work more hours, or take that promotion, if it will bump them out of the perks of welfare like food, day care, medical.. and they can make the same money, have the same things, but have to work more to get them and then pay for them? Nope. They are set up. Love it that way.

[henryclay]

krickitt said:

. . . we are enabling the welfare state by giving them credits that keep them from getting ahead. Why should they work, or work more hours, or take that promotion, if it will bump them out of the perks of welfare like food, day care, medical.. and they can make the same money, have the same things, but have to work more to get them and then pay for them?

But to ask those people to do anything in exchange for their subsistence would put too many illegal alien who don't have work authorization and only take cash , , , but all of whom are taxpayers , , , out on the street, doncha know?

What we NEED to do is cut the loopholes and tax breaks. Mr. Reid tells us that taking more money by closing loopholes and tax breaks, instead of letting taxpayers use it to create jobs is what we need to do. And of course they need that money in Washington to pay all those people you mention. They're the ones who won't take those jobs that the illegals are glad to get, and forcing them to do it would be unfair to the Democratic voting base. . . .doncha know that, too?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 1, 2011 13:13:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

If you suspected the whiny-voiced, hunch-backed senior citizen Senator from Searchlight, Nevada was senile, today he proved you right.

"[It's] time we return to the type of fiscal discipline that democrats brought to Washington in the 90¡äs when democrats in the Congress and White House balanced the budget and used the surplus to do what Mr. President? To pay down the debt," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the Senate floor today.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/01/harry_reid_return_to_type_of_fiscal_discipline_under_the_democrats.html

Reminiscing about the 1990s, Harry Reid claimed it was Democrats in Congress¡¯s ¡°fiscal discipline¡± that achieved a balanced budget.

The budget was balanced because the Republicans who controlled the congress forced then-President Clinton to limit spending ¨C just as they are doing now with President Obama.

And the budget wasn't even expected to be balanced; it was the unexpected surge of revenues due to the Reagan-legacy economy that allowed money to come into Washington faster than liberals like Reid could spend it.

this is the mythology. but the reality is that the congress was no more divided than it is today. and the GOP was less obstructionist. yet Clinton produced a virtually balanced budget in his final year, and Obama is $1.5T in debt this year.

[safeharbor37]

"[It's] time we return to the type of fiscal discipline that democrats brought to Washington in the 90¡äs when democrats in the Congress and White House balanced the budget and used the surplus to do what Mr. President? To pay down the debt," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the Senate floor today."

What the majority leader is saying is that it was Clinton rather than the "Contract with America" Republicans who insisted that the money be used to [try to] balance the budget. That of course is a lie, but Reid is a liberal and no doubt believes it to be true. This give credence to Colter's assertion that "liberalism is a mental disease'" but you have to be a little conservative [sane] to recognize that.
One of the problems in discussing the options in our current situation is that so many have taken the fearful stance that the government is the source of all good. Once that position is taken, one adopts the convictions of a willing slave. The positions in our political climate are so extreme that it is difficult, if not impossible, to rationally discuss the real alternatives. The admonition to "Get a Job" is considered by some as unrealistic, as is the advice to "take what you can get" until you can do better. It's like talking to children, which is the way the government looks at citizens and what what citizens who submit become.

[henryclay]

Exactly, safe. And there are a lot of people who are going to discover that depending on the government can be life threatening. I hope it is not many people that have to learn it the hard way, but the longer it takes to get that word out, the larger that number will be.

And that's whether or not Harry Reid gets his tax increase by closing loopholes and tax breaks. Because for every additional dollar they collect there will be another spending prograam waiting to use it, , , and more like it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 1, 2011 15:33:04 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 1, 2011 13:13:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

If you suspected the whiny-voiced, hunch-backed senior citizen Senator from Searchlight, Nevada was senile, today he proved you right.



www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/01/harry_reid_return_to_type_of_fiscal_discipline_under_the_democrats.html

Reminiscing about the 1990s, Harry Reid claimed it was Democrats in Congress¡¯s ¡°fiscal discipline¡± that achieved a balanced budget.

The budget was balanced because the Republicans who controlled the congress forced then-President Clinton to limit spending ¨C just as they are doing now with President Obama.

And the budget wasn't even expected to be balanced; it was the unexpected surge of revenues due to the Reagan-legacy economy that allowed money to come into Washington faster than liberals like Reid could spend it.

He really is senile if he thinks the debt was ever paid down at any point in history...I remember them trying to decide what they would do when the FORECASTED surplus ever occurred (however, I don't think paying down the debt was very popular) - however that fantasy surplus was never actually achieved because the economy tanked during the end of Clinton's last term due to the Tech bust.

At the end of the Cold War, Democrats wanted to spend and raise taxes. During the time of projected surpluses Democrats wanted to spend and raise taxes. During good economy- raise taxes, in recession raise taxes, in the latest meltdown- spend and raise taxes. They really don't have another play.

[Deleted]

Ok. Just plop Republicans in for Democrats, and lower in for raise... and you get the same thing...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 1, 2011 16:04:47 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Not sure if it makes me a fake conservative to say it, but I DO agree that there are a lot of BS tax breaks that need to go away. For one thing, we are enabling the welfare state by giving them credits that keep them from getting ahead. Why should they work, or work more hours, or take that promotion, if it will bump them out of the perks of welfare like food, day care, medical.. and they can make the same money, have the same things, but have to work more to get them and then pay for them? Nope. They are set up. Love it that way.

The tax code should consist of an easy to understand, transparent set of rules that explain how to pay one's very small amount of taxes due. No deductions. No credits. No special favors for anyone. No subsidies.

[henryclay]

paul, similar things have been discusse over the years, and I mean "years", , , "lots" of years. At one time it would have been a walk in the park compared to now, but it would never have been easy. The one thing we must all keep in mind is that no matter what the government collects, or how they collect it, or what name they put on it, , , , it won't be enough. That part is ordained by the current nature of how they spend it. The problem is not collecting tax money. The problem is in what they do with it. It's not very much different than the problem we have with people entering the country illegally. It's not that they are here and keep coming, it's what are we doing to keep them from it. If somebody doesn't put a stop to it, they will continue to come and taht will evntually ovrwhelm our own people's ability to compete, and if somebody doesn't put a stop to the spending it will also continue and eventually overwhelm the power to meet spending requiements.

In both instances nobody is currently in control. We need to fix both control problems before we can realistically expect to have any other result.

And to start with, if over 40 percent of the country doesn't pay any income tax now, and half of that group actually collects back a reverse income tax, what kind of system would we need in order to have them able to maintain an uninterrupted lifestyle?

The next question is: "What are you going to tax?" Are you going to tax those things that are now NOT taxed, like Roth IRA's? SSDI payments? Health care reimbursements from insurance companies? And even worse, who is going to keep track of it all?

And finally, if the top few percent of taxpayers now fund a lions share of the income tax collections and they get cut to the same rate everybody else pays, what will be the necessary collection percentage needed to make up for the windfall they will benefit from by lowering their tax contributions.

So, in toto, if we think the health care system makeover is a bitch, wait till we have a tax collection system makeover.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Actually, the bigger and more out of control the tax code / government as a whole gets-- the easier it's going to be to throw the whole damn thing out.

[henryclay]

whew!!

[djAdvocate]

Jul 1, 2011 22:48:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Actually, the bigger and more out of control the tax code / government as a whole gets-- the easier it's going to be to throw the whole damn thing out.

that fails the test of logic for me. the bigger something is, the harder it is to get rid of it, ime.