insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

House Republican leaders unveiled their alternative to the proposed Democratic budget Wednesday, calling for $4.8 trillion less in overall spending over the next decade -- in part through a five-year freeze in most nondefense discretionary spending.

I cannot palm my face hard enough.

IrateShadow: I cannot palm my face hard enough.

Might I be so bold as to encourage you to please try anyway?

Goodbye GOP! Bye-bye! Don't let the door hit you where your lord split you!

IrateShadow: House Republican leaders unveiled their alternative to the proposed Democratic budget Wednesday, calling for $4.8 trillion less in overall spending over the next decade -- in part through a five-year freeze in most nondefense discretionary spending.

I cannot palm my face hard enough.

no shiat. if the GOP has their way, they'll cause a second great depression. the absolute worst possible thing to do in our current situation is to freeze spending. the absolute worst. but then, according to them, the great depression magically ended with WWII and had nothing to do with the new deals (even though WWII was the most massive of all spending programs).

remember, folks: the GOP loves to spend money bombing brown people. but if you spend a goddamned dime here - YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!!!!1!!!!1111!!!

radiumsoup: Might I be so bold as to encourage you to please try anyway?

Defense spending is already an insane portion of the budget. If we are going to freeze everything else, they should be taking their hit as well.

They could at least try and salvage the party by suggesting some tax cuts

.

Overall the Republican budget calls for $3.6 trillion less in borrowing over the next 10 years.

Thumbs up on that one.

It also calls for establishing a new tax system based on two rates. A 10 percent income tax rate would apply to couples making $100,000 or less, as well as singles earning less than $50,000. The income tax rate would rise to 25 percent for those earning more.

This is an interesting idea.

Defense spending would be increased by $5 billion compared with Obama's budget. The GOP proposal also calls for an additional $540 million in veterans' spending above Obama's proposal

But... but... veterans are bad!

It has to work eventually. It just HAS to.

FTFA:It also calls for establishing a new tax system based on two rates. A 10 percent income tax rate would apply to couples making $100,000 or less, as well as singles earning less than $50,000. The income tax rate would rise to 25 percent for those earning more.

OK, so how is an increase to 25% a tax cut?

FlashHarry: the absolute worst possible thing to do in our current situation is to freeze spending. the absolute worst.

Yet somehow in your mind it makes MORE sense to spend, spend, spend, and increase our debt significantly in the long term?

Honestly -- what happens if Obama's projections about increased growth as a result of these infrastructure projects and massive spending increase he is proposing doesn't pan out? We've then increased our national debt significantly with nothing to show for it except more debt.

Besides, don't forget, the Chinese are making rumblings about cutting back on loaning our government money. That might have a little bit of an effect on our ability to spend money -- either that or we can just print a shiatload more and say "screw inflation!"

KaponoFor3:



Honestly -- what happens if Obama's projections about increased growth as a result of these infrastructure projects and massive spending increase he is proposing doesn't pan out?

Tax cuts always bring about increased growth!

.

the8re: OK, so how is an increase to 25% a tax cut?

Uh, right now our tax system scales from 10-35%.

KaponoFor3: But... but... veterans are bad!

So, between the $5 bil more in defense spending and the half a billion more in veteran spending...you chose to make a stupid comment about the smaller number and not the insanely large amount of money being thrown away in defense?

odd...

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Tax cuts always bring about increased growth!

They do, because businesses grow and people have more to spend. Just imagine how much money the goverment would bring in if the dropped rates to 0%!

KaponoFor3: Honestly -- what happens if Obama's projections about increased growth as a result of these infrastructure projects and massive spending increase he is proposing doesn't pan out?


According to the latest results, spending is already on the rise. Home sales went up, durable goods went up, and those things create jobs.

You were saying?

KaponoFor3: FlashHarry: the absolute worst possible thing to do in our current situation is to freeze spending. the absolute worst.

Yet somehow in your mind it makes MORE sense to spend, spend, spend, and increase our debt significantly in the long term?

yes it does. in fact, i'd wager the ARRA wasn't big enough. we'll need a second stimulus before this is through.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Tax cuts always bring about increased growth!

[Quizzical dog]?

bulldg4life: odd...

Yes, so terrible of me to champion increased spending for veterans. Is there bloat and waste in the defense budget? I think so, the same could be said about pretty much every governmental agency/bureaucracy/department.

FlashHarry: but then, according to them, the great depression magically ended with WWII and had nothing to do with the new deals (even though WWII was the most massive of all spending programs).

That's what I find absolutely astounding. Again and again Limbaugh&Co claim that the government "has never created a single job" and that the New Deal was the direct culprit for the Great Depression... and then they say that WW2 was what pulled us out. So building roads and bridges doesn't count as jobs, but building bombers I guess does. I can't begin to understand the mentality of someone who would make such an argument. That said...

KaponoFor3: Besides, don't forget, the Chinese are making rumblings about cutting back on loaning our government money. That might have a little bit of an effect on our ability to spend money -- either that or we can just print a shiatload more and say "screw inflation!"

This. If we had gone into this is fiscally sound shape, I'd swallow the Deficit Pill a lot more easily. The money might genuinely run out. Then it's the endgame.

KaponoFor3: Besides, don't forget, the Chinese are making rumblings about cutting back on loaning our government money. That might have a little bit of an effect on our ability to spend money

They own 6.72% of our debt now. When you say "little bit of an effect" that's exactly what it would be if they stopped loaning us money.

Combine that with the whole thing about how their economy depends on us being around...it sure sounds like a bad idea unless they like being taken down with us.

pwhp_67: According to the latest results, spending is already on the rise. Home sales went up, durable goods went up, and those things create jobs.

You were saying?

Are you really trying to evaluate Obama's programs based on a three month sample size? Besides, Obama's projections are long-term (as they should be) -- and didn't he just get done telling the nation that long-term was his focus, not occasional good or bad days?

FlashHarry: the absolute worst possible thing to do in our current situation is to freeze spending. the absolute worst.

Odd. I thought running deficits that run up to a trillion dollars each year for the nine years followed by a somewhat less insane deficit of some $600 billion would seem like a less prudent route than some spending constraints. Maybe you are comfortable with a budget deficit that alone accounts for five percent of the GDP. I know the CBO has questioned that. But, I guess that's just butthurt warrgarbl or whatever it is we call it these days when someone object to a course of action from our current leadership.

KaponoFor3: Yes, so terrible of me to champion increased spending for veterans. Is there bloat and waste in the defense budget? I think so, the same could be said about pretty much every governmental agency/bureaucracy/department.

Yes, which is why it is odd that you would focus on the smaller number instead of saying something about throwing away money at defense.

Do you feel that Obama is intentionally screwing the veterans...because, personally, I'd expect Obama to compromise and move towards the GOP number on veteran spending?

It seems odd that a fiscal conservative, such as yourself, would pick the second number to make a stupid comment on. You know, fiscally speaking.

Senescent Dawn: This. If we had gone into this is fiscally sound shape, I'd swallow the Deficit Pill a lot more easily. The money might genuinely run out. Then it's the endgame.

Yep, but don't tell that to some of the posters on here. Either their love of Obama or their hate of all things Republican means that when economic conservatives have a valid point, they will refuse to acknowledge it.

Yes, I know the stupid social conservatives do the same thing. It is stupid there as well.

bulldg4life: They own 6.72% of our debt now.

[Citation please]

KaponoFor3: Are you really trying to evaluate Obama's programs based on a three month sample size?


Nope. Just observing that the "market" seems to agree with his plan and is responding positively...

bulldg4life: Do you feel that Obama is intentionally screwing the veterans...because, personally, I'd expect Obama to compromise and move towards the GOP number on veteran spending?

Absolutely not. I think Obama will do lightyears better on veterans issues than Bush will. That being said, I will almost always support increased veterans spending.

bulldg4life: It seems odd that a fiscal conservative, such as yourself, would pick the second number to make a stupid comment on. You know, fiscally speaking

You have to look at the big picture. I'll take an increase in defense spending when it is more than offset by other cuts.

Nabb1: FlashHarry: the absolute worst possible thing to do in our current situation is to freeze spending. the absolute worst.

Odd. I thought running deficits that run up to a trillion dollars each year for the nine years followed by a somewhat less insane deficit of some $600 billion would seem like a less prudent route than some spending constraints. Maybe you are comfortable with a budget deficit that alone accounts for five percent of the GDP. I know the CBO has questioned that. But, I guess that's just butthurt warrgarbl or whatever it is we call it these days when someone object to a course of action from our current leadership.

it's funny, especially when you consider your guy famously said "deficits don't matter."

and i'd hardly characterize an across-the-board spending freeze during the worst recession since 1933 as a "spending constraint." but what's a little intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy from the right?

*scratches head*

A family bringing in more than $100,000 is considered rich? What's the average salary in the states these days?

would everyone here that lived through the last inflationary cycle please raise their hands?

That was 1979- 1984 or so, depending on where you lived.

It sucked. Too much money in the system, yea, we all made 50k as young whippersnappers but we all had 13% mortgages.

I always am struck by the vehemence expressed by people that honestly believe:
(a) this is the worst anything
(2) they are the worst affected by anything
next, it hasn't been done or lived through
4., George Bush is worse than Pol Pot.

Calm down, get a perspective.

OldScotch: *scratches head*

A family bringing in more than $100,000 is considered rich? What's the average salary in the states these days?

FTA:

"The GOP budget permanently extends all of former President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Among other things, it also suspends capital gains taxes through 2010."

KaponoFor3: You have to look at the big picture. I'll take an increase in defense spending when it is more than offset by other cuts.

Erm, they did that for 7 years with Bushie and Co. It failed. A lot.

bulldg4life: They own 6.72% of our debt now. When you say "little bit of an effect" that's exactly what it would be if they stopped loaning us money.

Listen, if a big bank stops lending to you, it's more a sign of your overall creditworthiness than a sign of one bank suddenly changing its mind. If China goes, others will follow. Besides, the fact that we can't borrow indefinitely is such basic math that even explaining it once feels redundant.

pwhp_67: KaponoFor3: Are you really trying to evaluate Obama's programs based on a three month sample size?


Nope. Just observing that the "market" seems to agree with his plan and is responding positively...

Sweet. Recession over, according to you.

Wanna buy my house? I'm putting it on the market today.

Great, spending cuts/freeze on the smallest portion of the budget, and more tax cuts. How the fark does this reduce the amount of new debt we take on, much less pay off the ginormous debt we already have?

This isn't fiscal conservatism, it's populism.

KaponoFor3: You have to look at the big picture. I'll take an increase in defense spending when it is more than offset by other cuts.

See, to me, that makes no sense whatsoever.

We spend more money on defense than any other nation on the planet, and that's by a healthy margin.

As a fiscally conservative person, I would think that defense spending is the first place you would look to cut back on. It makes perfect sense that we need to stop throwing away money at the military industrial complex. Yet, you're okay with FIVE billion MORE dollars than what Obama already proposed (which is higher than last year but not as much as the Pentagon wanted...I believe).

That seems bass ackward.

Senescent Dawn: bulldg4life: They own 6.72% of our debt now. When you say "little bit of an effect" that's exactly what it would be if they stopped loaning us money.

Listen, if a big bank stops lending to you, it's more a sign of your overall creditworthiness than a sign of one bank suddenly changing its mind. If China goes, others will follow. Besides, the fact that we can't borrow indefinitely is such basic math that even explaining it once feels redundant.

borrow a hundred thousand dollars and the bank owns you. borrow a hundred million dollars and you own the bank. china can't live without us. they're not stupid.

OldScotch: Erm, they did that for 7 years with Bushie and Co. It failed. A lot

No, they didn't, because that increase in defense spending was not offset by other cuts. Sorry.

bulldg4life: 24.07% of 27.90% is 6.71553%

Ownership of all US Treasury Securities =/= ownership of debt.

FlashHarry: borrow a hundred thousand dollars and the bank owns you. borrow a hundred million dollars and you own the bank. china can't live without us. they're not stupid.

The implication then, is that we can borrow an infinite amount of money with no thought to how we'll pay it back? China may need us, but one country being economically dependent on another doesn't negate basic economic fact.

Lundah:
This isn't fiscal conservatism, it's populism.

except it's not popular.

the GOP is a broken record. "tax cuts! tax cuts! tax cuts!" the public has finally recognized this. this is why obama's approval has remained fairly constant at 60+ percent while the GOP's has plummeted. americans see the GOP as obstructionist and bereft of ideas. this budget confirms that concept. remember - americans voted for "change" in a landslide last year. the GOP budget is more bushonomics.

FlashHarry: it's funny, especially when you consider your guy famously said "deficits don't matter."

Let me explain a couple of things to you that you apparently fail to realize or are willfully overlooking. First, I railed for six years of out of control GOP spending. In 2004, I voted third party in part because of foreign policy issues, but in larger part in protest as to what I felt was a betrayal of the very fiscal principals that ever led me to vote Republican in the first place, and in 2006, I said the GOP rightfully got its ass handed to it in Congress after six years of scandals and irresponsibility, so Bush is not "my guy," and never, not once, at any time at all, was he "my guy" on fiscal policy. If anything, he is the poster boy for the downfall of the GOP. Even then, couching criticisms of this with things like "your guy" is simplistic in the extreme. I'm sorry if you think that everyone who criticizes Obama marched in lockstep with Bush for eight years. I'm really sorry if that's how you view the world. If that's what you have to tell yourself and is the only rebuttal you can come up with to criticism, fine, but I won't waste my time responding to such tripe from you anymore. Understand?

and i'd hardly characterize an across-the-board spending freeze during the worst recession since 1933 as a "spending constraint." but what's a little intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy from the right?

Rather than type a whole new response to you about intellectual dishonesty, allow me to redirect you back up to my first paragraph. That more or less covers that.

bulldg4life: We spend more money on defense than any other nation on the planet, and that's by a healthy margin.

That's absolutely true.

As a fiscally conservative person, I would think that defense spending is the first place you would look to cut back on

I prioritize defense spending.

Senescent Dawn: FlashHarry: borrow a hundred thousand dollars and the bank owns you. borrow a hundred million dollars and you own the bank. china can't live without us. they're not stupid.

The implication then, is that we can borrow an infinite amount of money with no thought to how we'll pay it back? China may need us, but one country being economically dependent on another doesn't negate basic economic fact.

obviously that's not the case. nobody said "infinite" - only you said it. your strawman is showing.

I see I'm going to get a bit more mileage out of this one.

FlashHarry:
FTA:

"The GOP budget permanently extends all of former President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Among other things, it also suspends capital gains taxes through 2010."

I should go read that article thing then, eh.

If you expected a GOP alternative to the failed policies of the past that got our country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, then I have two words for you: April Fools.

Oooh, snap.

IrateShadow: House Republican leaders unveiled their alternative to the proposed Democratic budget Wednesday, calling for $4.8 trillion less in overall spending over the next decade -- in part through a five-year freeze in most nondefense discretionary spending.

I cannot palm my face hard enough.

Me, too. They should be closing all foreign bases, half of the U.S. bases, and using the money to pay down the debt.

FlashHarry: obviously that's not the case. nobody said "infinite" - only you said it. your strawman is showing.

You were the one who brushed off debt concerns by saying "we own the bank." That is an oversimplification at best.

At the same time, the federal share of Medicaid payments would be converted to block grants for the states. Medicare would be transformed for Americans younger than 55 by allowing them to choose from a series of preapproved private insurance plans, with premium payments from the federal government to insurers varying according to an individual's age, income and health.

How the hell does that solve any of the problems with health care in this country? How does it address any of it at all?!

Bloody William: How the hell does that solve any of the problems with health care in this country? How does it address any of it at all?!

It doesn't, it just makes it someone else's problem.

blldg4life: It has to work eventally. It jst HAS to.

No, it doesn't (new window).

Nabb1:
Rather than type a whole new response to you about intellectual dishonesty, allow me to redirect you back up to my first paragraph. That more or less covers that.

i actually agree with much of what you said. i just felt it was dishonest to characterize a spending freeze as a minor constraint.

and i agree that the GOP spent like drunken sailors during the bush era. the problem now is, we actually need to spend money domestically. unlike the trumped up "war on terror," this is a real global recession - one that demands a new paradigm - a paradigm that requires the injection of government capital into the system. if we go conservative now, we'll see a downturn much like the recession of 1938.

on the whole, i'm a fiscal conservative. but we're teetering on the brink of a second great depression - and we're going to need increased spending and government regulation to pull out of it. i don't like it. but i don't see any other way.