GOP likely to get blame regarding spending cuts.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

How can the GOP go about making cuts if they don't make cuts? And if there goal is to make cuts why should it bother anyone if they are blamed for the same? Seems to me you can't have it both ways.

I will give them credit for cutting spending, not blame.

[Minister_of_Information]

The GOP whatever its faults is the only game in town when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Obviously there is a political price to be paid for that.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I really don't think most Americans are concerned about this. Their voting habits suggest they're lying about expressed concerns for future generations.

Average voter "What is this guy gonna give me?" and "How much is he gonna make that rich bastard pay"

[PSGator66]

Obama has recieved tax increases but refuses to reduce any spending at all! I have to believe that you left leaners on this board must realize that we are headed for trouble if we maintain the current path but will not forsake your messiah.

[madgator]

Originally Posted by PSGator66

Obama has recieved tax increases but refuses to reduce any spending at all! I have to believe that you left leaners on this board must realize that we are headed for trouble if we maintain the current path but will not forsake your messiah.

not going to happen


Obama can do anything he wants

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

They already did that when they agreed to the tax hikes last December?

Most conservative and libertarian people on this board warned that the tax hikes agreed to last December and implemented after the first of the year to avoid the so called "fiscal cliff" were just a beginning. That there would more.

I will ask you the same question I asked at that time; if repealing ALL the Bush tax cuts was on the table, would you support that? For every level of taxpayer?

Further, would you support the notion that we would go back to inflation adjusted government spending levels at the time of the Bush tax cuts? Almost ACROSS THE BOARD?

(I say almost becasue some spending increases cannot be avoided. Mostly interest payments.)

And Democrats agreed to cuts last year too. The deficit has gone down. I'm not sure what your point is, revenue can only come from a one time income tax increase? Then its off the table forever?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

And Democrats agreed to cuts last year too. The deficit has gone down. I'm not sure what your point is, revenue can only come from a one time income tax increase? Then its off the table forever?

They have cut nothing and the National dept is going to hit $17 Trillion shortly. Nice game you're playing though

[HALLGATOR]

We can argue all we want to but the reason this country owes so much money is because both parties have been acquiescence to spending more than the government takes in.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If the GOP was serious about deficit reduction, they'd put revenue on the table. But they arent, and they're going to get blamed if the sequester goes down because they keep trying to push these fake showdowns to force big cuts to entitlements, that they want Democrats to put forward, rather than themselves, because they don't want the blame.

they just raised taxes. does raising taxes not qualify as revenue now? no amount of revenue will ever be enough for tax and spend libs.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

We can argue all we want to but the reason this country owes so much money is because both parties have been acquiescence to spending more than the government takes in.

Nobody has said otherwise, but the fact stands there are some of us that want to change this trend and others, not so much

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

We can argue all we want to but the reason this country owes so much money is because both parties have been acquiescence to spending more than the government takes in.

and when one party tries to actually do anything about it, they get villified by the other party and skewered by the press and the ignorant masses just believe whatever the lmsm tells them.

[madgator]

I don't understand why the democrats aren't more eager to own these defense cuts that they have been screaming is so necessary.

[G8trGr8t]

good read here...future treasury secretary Lew was all into this sequestration idea borne from the 0 camp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...c314_blog.html

As the saying goes, success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan. And if there ever is an orphan in Washington these days, it is that odd duck known as “sequestration.”

We’ve earlier written that there are bipartisan fingerprints over the looming defense cuts that Mitt Romney has sought to pin on President Obama. Now, in the final presidential debate, Obama sought to toss the hot potato of sequestration — the process that is forcing those defense cuts and reductions in domestic spending — into Congress’s lap.

Fortunately, there is a detailed and contemporaneous look at the debt ceiling deal that led to the current budget crunch: Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics.” The book clearly had the full cooperation of top White House and congressional officials. With the help of our colleague, we took a tour through the relevant sections in order to determine the accuracy of the president’s statement.




The Facts


The battle over raising the debt ceiling consumed Washington in the summer of 2011, with Republicans refusing to agree to raise it unless spending was cut by an equivalent amount. Obama pressed but failed to get an agreement on raising revenue as part of the package. Woodward’s book details the efforts to come up with an enforcement mechanism that would make sure the cuts took place — and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.


Page 215 (July 12, 2011):


They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.

“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.

“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.

“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”

“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

We can argue all we want to but the reason this country owes so much money is because both parties have been acquiescence to spending more than the government takes in.

FACT

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatorpa

Average voter "What is this guy gonna give me?" and "How much is he gonna make that rich bastard pay"

Ain't democracy the bomb ?!

[madgator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Ain't democracy the bomb ?!

Unfortunately, the joke is on the little guy.....


I'm sure that it gets a good laugh at one of Obama's $500k "white house access" meetings.

and that's what makes the whole thing just so completely pathetic. It's like Obama supporters do not give a rats butt about priniciples just as long as a guy with a D next to his name is in office.

he can do whatever he wants......sad really

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

And Democrats agreed to cuts last year too. The deficit has gone down. I'm not sure what your point is, revenue can only come from a one time income tax increase? Then its off the table forever?

My point is this; you asserted that the GOP would not agree to tax hikes. That is simply not true, given the tax hikes voted on last December. You also seem to imply that further tax hikes are needed.

But where are the cuts?

I also note that you did not answer the question about the Bush tax cuts. If you think the GOP needs to agree on further tax hikes, please identify on who you think those tax hikes will impact.

[secgator]

"do you really think this path is sustainable?"

Of course the Dims do--just adhere to the thoughts of their brilliant economic leader Pelosi, when she claims "we don't have a spending problem, we have a budget problem". So of course they feel it is sustainable....spend, spend, spend--cuts? WTF are cuts??

This dumbass can't even put together a coherent thought when speaking without stumbling all over the place, yet her brilliance shines through with this--one of her numerous and profound claims.

[adamgator96]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

And Democrats agreed to cuts last year too. The deficit has gone down. I'm not sure what your point is, revenue can only come from a one time income tax increase? Then its off the table forever?

One time tax increase? What was the point of the tax increase to begin with? It was supposed to get us to pay our "fair share" and be part of a balanced solution, right? Isn't that the line we were fed?

You either don't mind paying another increase or you don't have skin in the game. Either way, I don't understand why you can't see that spending is the problem.

And, "no," you can't have another income tax increase months after you just got one.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Ain't democracy the bomb ?!

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Scary huh....