Mitch McConnell is a f***ing Tool

[BSAM]

Don't raise taxes, reduce spending.

It's that simple.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from BSAM:

Don't raise taxes, reduce spending.

It's that simple.

You're smarter than that, BSAM.

Quote from Gabfly1:

...The Democrats are simply against the idea that the burden of fiscal reform should be placed solely on the backs of the most vulnerable while leaving the financially advantaged entirely unaffected. Particularly after those very same rich had been expressly pandered to in the eight years preceding Obama, and that very same pandering has contributed to the deficit crisis.

 

[Max E.]

Quote from Gabfly1:

You're being far too cynical. I think Obama really wants to do what is best for the country.

Bullshit, Obama is playing politics just like everyone else, If Obama wanted to, he had a super majority, him and the dems could have passed all the tax increases they wanted if they trulyfelt that was what was best, and cared about what was right for the country in their eyes. But they didnt, because they knew they would have gotten slaughtered if they came in and did that.

Now all Obama and the dems are left with is making out the republicans to be evil. They dont want to fix social security, or Medicare/medicaid, or anything else with the deficit, hell Obama isnt even making an issue over military spending which should be a slam dunk to his own base.

And every single time that the republicans try to do this Obama comes out and plays politics, so basically the only way to get anything cut is where we stand right now with the debt limit, and it looks like that tool McConnell is also going to pass that option off in favour of politics.

 

[Max E.]

Quote from BSAM:

Don't raise taxes, reduce spending.

It's that simple.

+1

If they want to raise taxes, the first thing they should do is set us on the path towards a balanced budget, and then if the last of the lifting has to be taxes, so be it, based on one condition, that they create a billl forcing balanced budgets from then on.

 

[BSAM]

...whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future....

Lysander Spooner

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

+1

If they want to raise taxes, the first thing they should do is set us on the path towards a balanced budget, and then if the last of the lifting has to be taxes, so be it, based on one condition, that they create a billl forcing balanced budgets from then on.

But the Right was able to contribute to (create?) the deficit with higher end tax cuts after inheriting a budgetary surplus? That's a very snazzy one-way ratchet you're holding there.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

"... based on one condition, that they create a billl forcing balanced budgets from then on.

They sort of did that in the 1987 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill. But the next year when they were required to live up to the LAW.. they just scrapped it as though it never was passed.

 

[BSAM]

We don't need a bill to force a balanced budget; we need a constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget.

 

[BSAM]

Does Mitch McConnell look like a real-life, old Howdy Doody?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

The government is the one who let spending get out of control,

Spending is not out of control, it's relatively large because our social safety net, such as it is, is carrying a larger than normal load, and because revenues are sharply down. When new jobs start multiplying, that spending will shrink at the same time that revenue starts growing, and the deficit will look a lot more manageable. That's not to say that in the long run the deficit won't need direct management, but it is to say that in the short run, spending cuts should not be considered the only response to the crisis. I think big cuts would have the opposite effect on our prospects for new job creation, for example we're already seeing the hemorrhaging of government jobs "propping" up the unemployment rate . I've said this before, stimulus spending, still necessary, must start going to the component of the economy that will spend it, not to that component which merely hoards it. I don't think we should merely cut checks for families, I have my doubts about that. I think we need a WPA type solution.