If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Fresh off raising taxes, Democrats seek to raise taxes by $1 Trillion more. Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000   (thehill.com) divider line 188
    More: Obvious, Democrats, Senate Republican Leader, mandatory spending, Budget Control Act, farewell speech, Senate Budget Committee, Charles Schumer, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

2186 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2013 at 10:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 10:39:09 AM  
Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000

FTA:
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011, combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday's tax deal and interest savings, adds up to about $2 trillion.
 
2013-01-07 10:41:37 AM  

Type_Hard: Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000

FTA:
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011, combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday's tax deal and interest savings, adds up to about $2 trillion.


It is if you round up.... Besides, half a trillion is going money anyway.
 
2013-01-07 10:41:54 AM  
Stuff costs money.
 
2013-01-07 10:43:44 AM  
Society costs money. You want low taxes, move to Somalia.
 
2013-01-07 10:43:56 AM  
Fresh off raising taxes

According to Grover Norquist, the recent law that was passed actually decreased taxes. You can't have it both ways, guys.
 
2013-01-07 10:44:16 AM  

HillbillyBubba: Type_Hard: Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000

FTA:
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011, combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday's tax deal and interest savings, adds up to about $2 trillion.

It is if you round up.... Besides, half a trillion is going money anyway.


A trillion here, a trillion there.... pretty soon you're talking real money.
 
2013-01-07 10:44:42 AM  
It's not Democrat math, it's Subby reading.
 
2013-01-07 10:45:39 AM  

Type_Hard: Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000

FTA:
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011, combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday's tax deal and interest savings, adds up to about $2 trillion.


I knew there was math that Republicans did to make themselves feel better, but I guess there also reading comprehension.
 
2013-01-07 10:46:01 AM  
Once a shark tastes that first drop of blood in the water, next thing you know it's a feeding frenzy.
 
2013-01-07 10:47:06 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HillbillyBubba: Type_Hard: Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000

FTA:
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011, combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday's tax deal and interest savings, adds up to about $2 trillion.

It is if you round up.... Besides, half a trillion is going money anyway.

A trillion here, a trillion there.... pretty soon you're talking real money.


Over 10 years, a trillion is 100 billion per year. You know what we spend on defense in 10 years?

Talk about 'real money'!
 
2013-01-07 10:47:39 AM  
Yay...  another story lifted from Drudge and dropped on Fark like a steaming pile of chicken-innards.

/yawn
 
2013-01-07 10:50:35 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Fresh off raising taxes

According to Grover Norquist, the recent law that was passed actually decreased taxes. You can't have it both ways, guys.


The part of the deal that decreased taxes was the Republican written portion and the part of the deal that raised taxes was the Democrat written portion?

/bet someone believes that
 
2013-01-07 10:50:54 AM  

theknuckler_33: It's not Democrat math, it's Subby reading.


Democrat math is economic math.

Repub math is mathmagic.

ecx.images-amazon.com
Don't like the math because it's for eggheads shoot it in the face.
 
2013-01-07 10:51:09 AM  
Awesome headline. Well done, Trollmitter.

www.bobcesca.com
 
2013-01-07 10:51:09 AM  

Type_Hard: Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000

FTA:
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011, combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday's tax deal and interest savings, adds up to about $2 trillion.


But interest savings don't count according to John Boehner. Interest costs, however, do count.
 
2013-01-07 10:52:50 AM  
What I don't understand is the repub insistence on taxe changes being "revenue neutral."

"The country isn't bringing in enough revenues to pay the bills, we need to raise taxes."
"OK, as long as it doesn't increase revenues."

?
 
2013-01-07 10:53:59 AM  
That's 2 Trillion over 10 years...yet the US debt increases ~1.2 Trillion per year....so only an additional $10 trillion will be added over the next ten years.
 
2013-01-07 10:54:16 AM  
Sounds like subby studied the math out.
 
2013-01-07 10:54:21 AM  
If you use Paul Ryan's marathon timing method this all makes sense.
 
2013-01-07 10:55:07 AM  

clambam: What I don't understand is the repub insistence on taxe changes being "revenue neutral."

"The country isn't bringing in enough revenues to pay the bills, we need to raise taxes."
"OK, as long as it doesn't increase revenues."

?


The goal is to destroy New Deal/Great Society programs under the auspices of spending cuts...
It was almost like there were specific reasons why we created those programs to begin with
 
2013-01-07 10:55:13 AM  
We're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending, and it is going to be extremely painful. Perhaps Spain/Greece level painful. Even the easy cuts (Defense/Corporate Welfare/Farm Bills) will be painful when we have to deal with the newly unemployed engineers and middle class white collar workers not being able to afford their mortgage/student loan payments, let alone their regular spending. Raising taxes will have similar problems, and even if we soak the rich, that pain will trickle down. The money will be taken out of the stock/bond market, which will hurt pensions and make government spending more expensive, which will necessitate more sacrifice from pensioners (or people supporting those pensioners) and more government cuts. It will be a vicious cycle, there is no doubting that. But a necessary and inevitable cycle.

Don't live beyond your means, and this shiat doesn't happen. Don't go into debt unless you're spending it on something with an ROI greater than one. It isn't farking rocket science.
 
2013-01-07 10:55:40 AM  
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has dismissed the possibility of negotiating additional tax increases.


WH and Democrats in House & Senate need to get out there and answer this "we're all done with the revenue side now" talking point, like, yesterday.

There's already been some spending cuts implemented since that deal that created the 'fiscal cliff', correct me if I'm wrong somebody, after which Obama didn't say "we're all done with the spending cuts".

Now they've added some additional revenue. Soon they'll nibble away at the spending, presumably followed by nibbling at the revenue side, repeat a couple times. You'd think that's how adults would approach the problem...
 
2013-01-07 10:55:42 AM  

ferretman: That's 2 Trillion over 10 years...yet the US debt increases ~1.2 Trillion per year....so only an additional $10 trillion will be added over the next ten years.


Progress!
 
2013-01-07 10:56:44 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Stuff costs money.


yup.  two wars overseas, plus all those wall street bailouts.  oh, and the housing collapse, and propping up the banks.  not to mention the costs of the war on terror and the war on drugs.  gotta keep taxes low on the rich and corporations of course...wouldn't do to have them actually kick in to keep the country afloat.  Do we really need infrastructure?  nah!  probably just end up in union pockets anyways.  we can just dodge the pot holes and collapsed bridges.  rich folks have their own helicopters anyways.
 
2013-01-07 10:57:09 AM  
So this was on the news last night:

Putin on Thursday approved the actor's application for Russian citizenship, causing a scandal in France, where Depardieu has been fighting a proposed 75 percent income tax on the superrich.

It could be worse, subby.
 
2013-01-07 10:57:54 AM  

Serious Black: Type_Hard: Bonus, according to democratic math $917 + $620 = $2000

FTA:
He said the $917 billion cut under the Budget Control Act passed in the summer of 2011, combined with $620 billion in revenues from Tuesday's tax deal and interest savings, adds up to about $2 trillion.

But interest savings don't count according to John Boehner. Interest costs, however, do count.


Calvinball? This is fantastic. But instead of just Boehner, it's the whole party playing.
 
2013-01-07 10:58:12 AM  
He [Boehner] sees debt as almost a moral failing, noting that when he grew up in a "little middle-class, blue-collar neighborhood" outside of Cincinnati, "nobody had debt. It was unheard of. I just don't do debt."

BILL TITLE: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
Boehner - Yea

See also: 2003 tax cut, Iraq war, Medicare Part D
 
2013-01-07 10:58:52 AM  

MattStafford: We're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending, and it is going to be extremely painful. Perhaps Spain/Greece level painful. Even the easy cuts (Defense/Corporate Welfare/Farm Bills) will be painful when we have to deal with the newly unemployed engineers and middle class white collar workers not being able to afford their mortgage/student loan payments, let alone their regular spending. Raising taxes will have similar problems, and even if we soak the rich, that pain will trickle down. The money will be taken out of the stock/bond market, which will hurt pensions and make government spending more expensive, which will necessitate more sacrifice from pensioners (or people supporting those pensioners) and more government cuts. It will be a vicious cycle, there is no doubting that. But a necessary and inevitable cycle.

Don't live beyond your means, and this shiat doesn't happen. Don't go into debt unless you're spending it on something with an ROI greater than one. It isn't farking rocket science.


I've said it before... we are at a point to where if you really want to cut the debt right now, you will basically be reverting back to the way the government was structured before the Great Depression. And current tax levels are unsustainable if the vast majority of the public are getting nothing out of it. The only way to cut the debt without starting a vicious cycle is baseline economic growth, that's the long and short of it.
 
Xai
2013-01-07 10:59:05 AM  
Silly farkers, republicans can't RTFA.
 
2013-01-07 11:00:19 AM  

MattStafford: We're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending, and it is going to be extremely painful. Perhaps Spain/Greece level painful. Even the easy cuts (Defense/Corporate Welfare/Farm Bills) will be painful when we have to deal with the newly unemployed engineers and middle class white collar workers not being able to afford their mortgage/student loan payments, let alone their regular spending. Raising taxes will have similar problems, and even if we soak the rich, that pain will trickle down. The money will be taken out of the stock/bond market, which will hurt pensions and make government spending more expensive, which will necessitate more sacrifice from pensioners (or people supporting those pensioners) and more government cuts. It will be a vicious cycle, there is no doubting that. But a necessary and inevitable cycle.

Don't live beyond your means, and this shiat doesn't happen. Don't go into debt unless you're spending it on something with an ROI greater than one. It isn't farking rocket science.


we won't do any of that though.
 
2013-01-07 11:00:51 AM  

MattStafford: We're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending, and it is going to be extremely painful. Perhaps Spain/Greece level painful. Even the easy cuts (Defense/Corporate Welfare/Farm Bills) will be painful when we have to deal with the newly unemployed engineers and middle class white collar workers not being able to afford their mortgage/student loan payments, let alone their regular spending. Raising taxes will have similar problems, and even if we soak the rich, that pain will trickle down. The money will be taken out of the stock/bond market, which will hurt pensions and make government spending more expensive, which will necessitate more sacrifice from pensioners (or people supporting those pensioners) and more government cuts. It will be a vicious cycle, there is no doubting that. But a necessary and inevitable cycle.

Don't live beyond your means, and this shiat doesn't happen. Don't go into debt unless you're spending it on something with an ROI greater than one. It isn't farking rocket science.


Amen! It's going to hurt bad but it IS going to happen sooner or later, and the later we wait to do it the more it will hurt. Beyond the cuts to defense, which couldn't be enough to close the deficit even if we slashed it to zero, we will have to look at entitlements. The cuts or adjustments we will have to make to SS and Medicare/Medicaid are going to be painful and difficult as well, but they will also be necessary. There are going to have to be cuts to every level of government if we are going to be serious about eliminating the deficit.
 
2013-01-07 11:02:06 AM  

clambam: What I don't understand is the repub insistence on taxe changes being "revenue neutral."

"The country isn't bringing in enough revenues to pay the bills, we need to raise taxes."
"OK, as long as it doesn't increase revenues."

?


Don't forget the "this tax increase only raises $100 billion so it doesn't completely solve all problems, therefore there should be no tax increase at all. But a spending cut to save $50 million is essential."
 
2013-01-07 11:02:32 AM  

TheManofPA: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Fresh off raising taxes

According to Grover Norquist, the recent law that was passed actually decreased taxes. You can't have it both ways, guys.

The part of the deal that decreased taxes was the Republican written portion and the part of the deal that raised taxes was the Democrat written portion?

/bet someone believes that


Obama raised taxes on the morning of January 1st by being a poopyhead who wouldn't agree to do what the republicans wanted.
The republicans lowered taxes on the night of January 1st by standing up to the godless socialism of the heathen libs.
 
2013-01-07 11:02:35 AM  

MattStafford: We're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending, and it is going to be extremely painful. Perhaps Spain/Greece level painful. Even the easy cuts (Defense/Corporate Welfare/Farm Bills) will be painful when we have to deal with the newly unemployed engineers and middle class white collar workers not being able to afford their mortgage/student loan payments, let alone their regular spending. Raising taxes will have similar problems, and even if we soak the rich, that pain will trickle down. The money will be taken out of the stock/bond market, which will hurt pensions and make government spending more expensive, which will necessitate more sacrifice from pensioners (or people supporting those pensioners) and more government cuts. It will be a vicious cycle, there is no doubting that. But a necessary and inevitable cycle.

Don't live beyond your means, and this shiat doesn't happen. Don't go into debt unless you're spending it on something with an ROI greater than one. It isn't farking rocket science.


The government isn't a business. I agree we shouldn't spend money we don't have, but thats only on stuff we don't need. Starving the best won't do anything but perpetuate this cycle of stupidity that started in the Reagan administration when they balooned government spending so they could use debts and deficits as an excuse to cut stuff they didn't like.
 
2013-01-07 11:03:34 AM  

BlueDWarrior: The only way to cut the debt without starting a vicious cycle is baseline economic growth, that's the long and short of it.


Yep. Getting back to full employment (~5% UE) wipes out 40% of the deficit by itself. We should be focused on reducing unemployment and income inequality. Fix those and you'll fix the deficit and debt. Not the other way around.
 
2013-01-07 11:04:20 AM  
6 more times and they'll be in Saint Reagan territory!
 
2013-01-07 11:04:42 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: He [Boehner] sees debt as almost a moral failing, noting that when he grew up in a "little middle-class, blue-collar neighborhood" outside of Cincinnati, "nobody had debt. It was unheard of. I just don't do debt."


Just how deluded does one have to be to believe that in a working class neighborhood not a single person had a mortgage or car payment?

It really is true, conservatives are driven to make things like they were when they were children. The only problem is when they were children they were completely ignorant of the entire world around them and they just assumed everything was perfect since as children they were not exposed to the reality going on around them. They want to "go back" to a completely imaginary utopia that never actually existed.
 
2013-01-07 11:04:51 AM  

blackhalo: Yay...  another story lifted from Drudge and dropped on Fark like a steaming pile of chicken-innards.

/yawn


Drudge stories bore you so much that you apparently check Drudge to know what headlines he's showing to know whether you should be bored?
 
2013-01-07 11:06:01 AM  

CPennypacker: The government isn't a business. I agree we shouldn't spend money we don't have, but thats only on stuff we don't need. Starving the best won't do anything but perpetuate this cycle of stupidity that started in the Reagan administration when they balooned government spending so they could use debts and deficits as an excuse to cut stuff they didn't like.


well, duh. No business would last long if they charged people based on what they can pay rather than what they actually purchased :)
 
2013-01-07 11:06:39 AM  

Xai: Silly farkers, republicans can't RTFA.


Republicans can't read anything except their handy bibles of course and they suck at that too.

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord."

0.tqn.com

If you are going to read the Bible I suggest reading the whole thing. The end is awesome.
 
2013-01-07 11:07:11 AM  

BlueDWarrior: MattStafford: We're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending, and it is going to be extremely painful. Perhaps Spain/Greece level painful. Even the easy cuts (Defense/Corporate Welfare/Farm Bills) will be painful when we have to deal with the newly unemployed engineers and middle class white collar workers not being able to afford their mortgage/student loan payments, let alone their regular spending. Raising taxes will have similar problems, and even if we soak the rich, that pain will trickle down. The money will be taken out of the stock/bond market, which will hurt pensions and make government spending more expensive, which will necessitate more sacrifice from pensioners (or people supporting those pensioners) and more government cuts. It will be a vicious cycle, there is no doubting that. But a necessary and inevitable cycle.

Don't live beyond your means, and this shiat doesn't happen. Don't go into debt unless you're spending it on something with an ROI greater than one. It isn't farking rocket science.

I've said it before... we are at a point to where if you really want to cut the debt right now, you will basically be reverting back to the way the government was structured before the Great Depression. And current tax levels are unsustainable if the vast majority of the public are getting nothing out of it. The only way to cut the debt without starting a vicious cycle is baseline economic growth, that's the long and short of it.


We don't need to cut the debt right now, that would take reverting back to the way the government was structured before the great depression and isn't necessary. What we do need to do, however, is cut the deficit right now so that we can at least stop adding to the debt. Doing that would require us to go back to the spending levels of around the early 2000s. That wouldn't be the end of the world. Once the deficit is eliminated we can start slowing working the debt down.
 
2013-01-07 11:07:13 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BlueDWarrior: The only way to cut the debt without starting a vicious cycle is baseline economic growth, that's the long and short of it.

Yep. Getting back to full employment (~5% UE) wipes out 40% of the deficit by itself. We should be focused on reducing unemployment and income inequality. Fix those and you'll fix the deficit and debt. Not the other way around.


It'll fix the short-term issues at least. We still have the long-term problem of health care costs spiraling out of control.
 
2013-01-07 11:08:42 AM  

Serious Black: Dusk-You-n-Me: BlueDWarrior: The only way to cut the debt without starting a vicious cycle is baseline economic growth, that's the long and short of it.

Yep. Getting back to full employment (~5% UE) wipes out 40% of the deficit by itself. We should be focused on reducing unemployment and income inequality. Fix those and you'll fix the deficit and debt. Not the other way around.

It'll fix the short-term issues at least. We still have the long-term problem of health care costs spiraling out of control.


I think that's only solved either by strict government regulation or control, or just saying the government will no longer be involved in healthcare... at all.
 
2013-01-07 11:08:53 AM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: The government isn't a business. I agree we shouldn't spend money we don't have, but thats only on stuff we don't need. Starving the best won't do anything but perpetuate this cycle of stupidity that started in the Reagan administration when they balooned government spending so they could use debts and deficits as an excuse to cut stuff they didn't like.

well, duh. No business would last long if they charged people based on what they can pay rather than what they actually purchased :)


wha?
 
2013-01-07 11:09:48 AM  

CPennypacker: The government isn't a business. I agree we shouldn't spend money we don't have, but thats only on stuff we don't need.


I'm not positive I follow what you mean here. If you are suggesting that we should go into debt to fund Social Security or Medicare or Welfare (I'm assuming those would be some of the items you would qualify as things we need) I would very strongly disagree with you. Going into debt and spending that money on improving your quality of life and not on improving your productive output is a recipe for disaster. Based on this belief, I assume you would think it advantageous for poor African nations to issue as much debt as possible to keep their retired people alive, and are at a complete loss as to why they don't go massively in debt for things they supposedly need.

CPennypacker: Starving the best won't do anything but perpetuate this cycle of stupidity that started in the Reagan administration when they balooned government spending so they could use debts and deficits as an excuse to cut stuff they didn't like.


It doesn't matter at this point. It all needs to be cut, and taxes need to be raised. The original intentions are in the past, and I completely agree that Reagan spending was completely irresponsible. Republicans went crazy with the spend/cut taxes/increase the debt idea, and they should rightly be chastised for it. Democrats weren't throwing up roadblocks however, and many on the left (particularly Krugman) are suggesting more of the same. All of that is just partisan bickering at this point, and what should be addressed is the very real and very scary situation that we are currently in.
 
2013-01-07 11:10:28 AM  

Serious Black: It'll fix the short-term issues at least. We still have the long-term problem of health care costs spiraling out of control.


Definitely, they're almost at 18% of GDP. But cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits won't solve that problem. Reducing the cost of health care will -- something the ACA attempts to do on many fronts. Hopefully, now that the dust over ACA has mostly settled, we'll begin to see some cost reduction as it is fully implemented.
 
2013-01-07 11:10:42 AM  

runin800m: BlueDWarrior: MattStafford: We're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending, and it is going to be extremely painful. Perhaps Spain/Greece level painful. Even the easy cuts (Defense/Corporate Welfare/Farm Bills) will be painful when we have to deal with the newly unemployed engineers and middle class white collar workers not being able to afford their mortgage/student loan payments, let alone their regular spending. Raising taxes will have similar problems, and even if we soak the rich, that pain will trickle down. The money will be taken out of the stock/bond market, which will hurt pensions and make government spending more expensive, which will necessitate more sacrifice from pensioners (or people supporting those pensioners) and more government cuts. It will be a vicious cycle, there is no doubting that. But a necessary and inevitable cycle.

Don't live beyond your means, and this shiat doesn't happen. Don't go into debt unless you're spending it on something with an ROI greater than one. It isn't farking rocket science.

I've said it before... we are at a point to where if you really want to cut the debt right now, you will basically be reverting back to the way the government was structured before the Great Depression. And current tax levels are unsustainable if the vast majority of the public are getting nothing out of it. The only way to cut the debt without starting a vicious cycle is baseline economic growth, that's the long and short of it.

We don't need to cut the debt right now, that would take reverting back to the way the government was structured before the great depression and isn't necessary. What we do need to do, however, is cut the deficit right now so that we can at least stop adding to the debt. Doing that would require us to go back to the spending levels of around the early 2000s. That wouldn't be the end of the world. Once the deficit is eliminated we can start slowing working the debt down.


Meanwhile, unemployment reaches 20%.
 
2013-01-07 11:12:38 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yep. Getting back to full employment (~5% UE) wipes out 40% of the deficit by itself. We should be focused on reducing unemployment and income inequality. Fix those and you'll fix the deficit and debt. Not the other way around.


Assuming that you are talking about the government assisting in the reduction of unemployment, how is that possibly going to wipe out 40% of the deficit? What government policies are you advocating that will both lower the unemployment rate and reduce our deficit at the same time? I'm honestly curious.
 
2013-01-07 11:13:19 AM  

phaseolus: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has dismissed the possibility of negotiating additional tax increases.


WH and Democrats in House & Senate need to get out there and answer this "we're all done with the revenue side now" talking point, like, yesterday.

There's already been some spending cuts implemented since that deal that created the 'fiscal cliff', correct me if I'm wrong somebody, after which Obama didn't say "we're all done with the spending cuts".

Now they've added some additional revenue. Soon they'll nibble away at the spending, presumably followed by nibbling at the revenue side, repeat a couple times. You'd think that's how adults would approach the problem...


Obama said that the fiscal cliff deal wasn't the final word on revenues when he gave that speech on New Years Eve about how the Senate had hammered out a deal. You know, the one that Republicans said was mean and would make them less likely to vote on the deal because he was "spiking the football" by announcing a deal had been reached.
 
2013-01-07 11:14:03 AM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: The government isn't a business. I agree we shouldn't spend money we don't have, but thats only on stuff we don't need.

I'm not positive I follow what you mean here. If you are suggesting that we should go into debt to fund Social Security or Medicare or Welfare (I'm assuming those would be some of the items you would qualify as things we need) I would very strongly disagree with you. Going into debt and spending that money on improving your quality of life and not on improving your productive output is a recipe for disaster. Based on this belief, I assume you would think it advantageous for poor African nations to issue as much debt as possible to keep their retired people alive, and are at a complete loss as to why they don't go massively in debt for things they supposedly need.

CPennypacker: Starving the best won't do anything but perpetuate this cycle of stupidity that started in the Reagan administration when they balooned government spending so they could use debts and deficits as an excuse to cut stuff they didn't like.

It doesn't matter at this point. It all needs to be cut, and taxes need to be raised. The original intentions are in the past, and I completely agree that Reagan spending was completely irresponsible. Republicans went crazy with the spend/cut taxes/increase the debt idea, and they should rightly be chastised for it. Democrats weren't throwing up roadblocks however, and many on the left (particularly Krugman) are suggesting more of the same. All of that is just partisan bickering at this point, and what should be addressed is the very real and very scary situation that we are currently in.


You know why spending on entitlements is so high? Because people are unemployed, underemployed and broke. Because we're in a slow climb recession recovery and employment and wages are lagging behind gdp recovery.

Cutting those entitlements will take more money out of the economy. What exactly is that going to fix? Then when even more people are unemployed and we have even higher defecits because even though entitlements are cut, more people have to draw them, you will want to cut again. I don't understand how people can fail to understand this.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report