Reid Bitch Slaps Boehner

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Free Thinker:

republicans dont care about spending cuts. they only want to dismantle the social safety net. they refuse to consider spending cuts for oil company subsidies, farm subsidies, corporate welfare subsidies, military spending ect.

You are swallowing the spin. What oil company subsidies? They get the same tax breaks as other ocmpanies. All this talk of "subsidies" is just part of the dems' class warfare, anti-jobs program. Do we want energy produced here and the tens of thousands of jobs that go with it or not? Obama doesn't. Oil workers tend to be white, non-union conservatives, so he hates them and doesn't care if they lose their jobs. And he and the dems are crying themselves to sleep every nght worrying about global "warming", so they would prefer we stop producing oil alltogether.

Farm subsidies are different. They are hard to defend or even understand, except as political payoffs. And you're right, plenty of midwestern republicans support them. We can cut them when we eliminate the Education Department, how's that?

Personally, I would cut military spending. A lot. We certainly don't need to be spending $15 billion a MONTH in Afghanistan and whatever we are pssing away in Iraq. We can also save billions in aid to Pakistan and Egypt. Why support our enemies?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Ricter:

I'm imagining a guy who loses his job, sees his debt begin rising rapidly, and thinks to cut his non-essential spending, like the cable subscription and the once a week dinner out. Good call, fella, but guess what, you're still gonna have to get a job. I hope you get my point. Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with 1) no new taxes! and 2) we can't count on any other future income--we're all gonna die!!1! Thus, spending cuts are the only tool in their kit, and of course they'll have to be drastic. (We'll ignore for the moment that drastic spending cuts also cut future sales. They do for a small firm, too, but the pool to absorb those new non-consumers in is relatively much larger.)

Now, I'll admit that I think it's a cryin' shame that we've let our debt grow so large, not thinking of those inevitable rainy days to come, and we've consequently put a lot of pressure on ourselves to raise our income. But you tell me why, when we've got a surplus (referring to the deficit, not debt), we can't seem to sock away money for the next rainy day? Oh yeah, that's right, if we have a surplus then it must be because taxes are too high--we're all gonna die!!1!

So yeah, Boehner was foolish to say "trillions". But he was pandering to fear.

News flash. We have a lot of tax revenue pouring in. We're not like the guy who lost his job. The problem is congress has historically spent 105% of what came in. Under Obama's brilliant leadership, that figure has jumped to a staggering amount.

No amount of tax raising will cover it. It will just delay the day of reckoning and make it worse when we do face it, because the deficits and debt will be even higher.

Talk to me about raising taxes when every possible cut has been actually implemented. In the past we have this shell game of promised cuts, which never materialized, and tax increases which in some cases were even made retroactive. Obama is either in a fantasy land or just flat out lying to the voters.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You are swallowing the spin. What oil company subsidies?

when you come to debate it helps to at least be aware of whats going on. watch something besides fox for a while:


Barton: Govt Subsidies Necessary To Keep Exxon From Going Out Of Business


"Barton argued that the subsidies represent equal treatment, and are required to keep the companies like Exxon-Mobil from going out of business."Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)

Democrats have proposed eliminating the oil and gas subsidies as part of a deficit reduction and spending cut package. The White House estimates that repealing the tax credits would save about $46 billion over 10 years.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-exxon-from-going-out-of-business.php?ref=fpb

 

[Ricter]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

News flash. We have a lot of tax revenue pouring in. We're not like the guy who lost his job. The problem is congress has historically spent 105% of what came in. Under Obama's brilliant leadership, that figure has jumped to a staggering amount.

No amount of tax raising will cover it. It will just delay the day of reckoning and make it worse when we do face it, because the deficits and debt will be even higher.

Talk to me about raising taxes when every possible cut has been actually implemented. In the past we have this shell game of promised cuts, which never materialized, and tax increases which in some cases were even made retroactive. Obama is either in a fantasy land or just flat out lying to the voters.

So much for analogy. You're correct about income, the government does have it. In fact, you can look at 70 years of that, and expenditures, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Through thick and thin, good times and bad times, global isolationism, interventionism, hot war, cold war, non-war, win some, lose some, and even hegemony, the US has been running a deficit, resulting in debt. How bad is that debt? Well, we can trade "scary" numbers, or we can put it in perspective and consider it as a percentage of our total economic activity (also a scary number). "News flash", it's been worse.

But suddenly it's Obama's fault and he has to fix it.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

...But suddenly it's Obama's fault and he has to fix it.

Not suddenly but Obama and company are making it exponentially worse. Not to worry though Ricter, he has absolutely no intention or even desire to fix it.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

Not suddenly but Obama and company are making it exponentially worse.

You didn't look at the data.