OFFLINE

i love how, as was the case with the budget talks, it's 3 democrats and 1 republican who always attend these meetings. and now peloski wants in too. and one thing i don't understand is the democrats' insistence on raising taxes. didn't we just have this debate last year with the bush tax cuts? wasn't it decided then that a down economy was no time to hike taxes? and speaking of the budget deal, and those "historic cuts:"

WASHINGTON – A close look at the government shutdown-dodging agreement to cut federal spending by $38 billion reveals that lawmakers significantly eased the fiscal pain by pruning money left over from previous years, using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Barack Obama had targeted anyway.

Instead, the cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can't be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused spending authority from a program providing health care to children of lower-income families.

About $10 billion of the cuts already have been enacted as the price for keeping the government open as negotiations progressed; lawmakers tipped their hand regarding another $10 billion or so when the House passed a spending bill last week that ran aground in the Senate.

For instance, the spending measure reaps $350 million by cutting a one-year program enacted in 2009 for dairy farmers then suffering from low milk prices. Another $650 million comes by not repeating a one-time infusion into highway programs passed that same year. And just last Friday, Congress approved Obama's $1 billion request for high-speed rail grants — crediting themselves with $1.5 billion in savings relative to last year.

in other words, all those "cuts" were just gimmicks, and you can expect more of the same from the democrats this go-round. you think they'd actually agree to REAL cuts?

OFFLINE

How about cutting this war budget that has spent $120 billion already this year alone.  Or, we could always stop the corporate welfare.  Big businesses that get to do business here and not pay taxes, big tax cuts for the rich?  Maybe?  I like how Ryan made the congress cut funding to much needed firefighting training programs to send 3 million in aid to Joplin.  But, yeah, let's see how it works for Republicans...




   " June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

    May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

    November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

    March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

    September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

Database searches revealed no demands from the four legislators that debt increases come accompanied by drastic spending cuts, as there are now. In fact, the May 2003 debt limit increase passed the Senate the same day as the $350 billion Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

When Bush was in office, the current Republican leaders viewed increasing the debt limit as vital to keeping America’s economy running. But with Obama in the White House, it’s nothing more than a political pawn."
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/14/158424/republican-leaders-debt-limit-hypocrisy/

OFFLINE

and back then, obama and the democrats voted no. so you could say whoever has the power wants more debt? so how long can we keep that arrangement going, particularly when obama has racked up more debt than any of his predecessors. and what's wrong with trying to make the government live within the $2 trillion it brings in every year? should we again raise the debt limit without a proportionate amount of cuts?

OFFLINE

Yeah, taking on more and more debt is never a very popular move, so both parties have played hot-potato with the issue.  I don't think the Republicans actually give a damn about the national debt so long as people will keep lending to us, they just want to use this to grill the Democrats and pander to a public thats disturbed by the amount of debt we carry.  When the Republicans get back in power (perhaps not in 2012, but sometime), I doubt we will see much if any reduction in the debt and the Democrats will start making more noise about it.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Yeah, taking on more and more debt is never a very popular move, so both parties have played hot-potato with the issue.  I don't think the Republicans actually give a damn about the national debt so long as people will keep lending to us, they just want to use this to grill the Democrats and pander to a public thats disturbed by the amount of debt we carry.  When the Republicans get back in power (perhaps not in 2012, but sometime), I doubt we will see much if any reduction in the debt and the Democrats will start making more noise about it.

no, the republican base gives a damn. the washington republican establishment gives less of a damn. this is why the tea party is a genuine movement. fiscal conservatives haven't been represented in a very long time. so in essence, the only difference between republicans and democrats in washington, is that the republicans actually have their constituents calling for fiscal responsibility, while the same can't be said of the democrats. it just goes against their ideology to shrink the size and expense of government. to actually cut back and limit programs, rather than introducing new ones.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
and back then, obama and the democrats voted no. so you could say whoever has the power wants more debt? so how long can we keep that arrangement going, particularly when obama has racked up more debt than any of his predecessors. and what's wrong with trying to make the government live within the $2 trillion it brings in every year? should we again raise the debt limit without a proportionate amount of cuts?

Four out of the five instances cited, McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, and Kyle (dem) all voted yes to raise the debt ceiling.  
My problem is not with lowering the debt ceiling.  My problem is the money being taken from essential programs that help lower income families (who pay taxes also) and a crumbling infastructure (which would offer Americans jobs) while still we continue warring in Afghanistan, occupying Iraq, corporate subsidies, huge tax breaks for the rich and you certainly don't see ANYONE on either side of the game taking a pay cut.  Dod, I am not happy with the party I supported.  Do you really believe all the crap the Republicans are spewing?  Do you not think it is time to bring our troops home?  Do you not think if you have more, you can afford more?  Or do you believe, like others that the only way is to bully our way to the top?  Cause that, my dear, is what's breaking our back as a country.  
And, do you think the Tea Party gives a damn???  Have you looked into who is really behind the movement?  Seriously, you don't think big insurance companies and the Koch brothers give a **** about any Americans except to **** their pocket books?

OFFLINE

Sorry, Kyle is Republican.  My mistake.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Lelania Bailey:
  My problem is the money being taken from essential programs that help lower income families (who pay taxes also) and a crumbling infastructure (which would offer Americans jobs) while still we continue warring in Afghanistan, occupying Iraq, corporate subsidies, huge tax breaks for the rich and you certainly don't see ANYONE on either side of the game taking a pay cut.

I'm not crazy about taking money that is desperately needed to help poor folks either.  And I wanna bring our troops home too.  I'm tired of wasting money on people who hate us.  I wanna get out of that part of the world and concentrate on doing business with people that DON'T hate us for religious reasons.  I'd love to open up trade with central and S. America as well as do more business with the UK, France, Italy and Germany...places like that.

At the same time, I also dont want to take money and use it to send the children of illegals to college either.
I dont want to use tax dollars to pay for Gay activists to come into the schools and indoctrinate school kids.
I dont want tax dollars to be used to pass out condoms to school kids.
I dont want tax dollars to be used to fund leftist news media like PBS and NPR.
I dont want it being used to fund the National Endowment of the Arts either.

Point is, BOTH sides waste money all the time.  And now they want to raise our debt limit AND they dont want to enact measures to cut spending?  Its suicidal for our nation to do something so stupid.  We've got to cut spending.  And we need to somehow enact measures that will give people reason to hire workers.  At the present, the only way I can see how this could happen is to reduced regulation and taxes that drive business overseas.  And that means lowering corporate taxes.

OFFLINE

well, we are currently spending over a trillion and a half dollars every year that we don't have. leaving iraq, afghanistan, and libya won't solve that. in many ways, this is a red herring. you want to bring the troops home, fine, but then we're still going to have to fix the mess we're in. currently, all those federal programs meant to help low income people are going bankrupt. without a major restructuring, those programs wont exist anymore. and you can't just ignore those programs, and cut elsewhere, because those programs are making up more and more of the budget. medicare costs are expected to double by 2020. by that same year, medicare, medicaid, and social security are expected to make up 80%  of mandatory spending. and that's according to the CBO.

now, the republicans put their necks out there by offering a solution, and the mediscare attacks began immediately. oh the republicans are trying to throw grandma off a cliff. really? as long as one side is willing to continue the lie that everything is okay, and no fixes are needed, then nothing is going to get done about it, and one day people really will be screwed.

OFFLINE

Dod~

Did you read this?
"While the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion."

You haven't read anything I posted.  You are only coming from your own stance w/o seeing anything I have said.  This REALLY disappoints me because, I have admitted spending needs to be cut.  Problem is where to cut the money.
Do you agree with subsidies for big oil companies?
Do you think we should be spending so much money on warring and occupying?
Talk to me,  Dod.  Give me a clue you are hearing my side.  Answer a question...do you think the wealthy deserve to get away w/o paying more in taxes?  Big corporations?  That's a lot of money we are letting slide...

OFFLINE

Awww, come on, Dod.  Just converse with me on this.  Answer the questions, even one...

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Lelania Bailey:
Dod~

Did you read this?
"While the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion."

You haven't read anything I posted.  You are only coming from your own stance w/o seeing anything I have said.  This REALLY disappoints me because, I have admitted spending needs to be cut.  Problem is where to cut the money.
Do you agree with subsidies for big oil companies?
Do you think we should be spending so much money on warring and occupying?
Talk to me,  Dod.  Give me a clue you are hearing my side.  Answer a question...do you think the wealthy deserve to get away w/o paying more in taxes?  Big corporations?  That's a lot of money we are letting slide...

i hear you, just stating the regrettable facts of the situation we're in. and you seem to be saying that it's okay to raise the debt limit now that the democrats want to, and i'm saying that yes, both sides are guilty, but that doesn't mean we can just continue to do what we've been doing. particularly when almost every president in recent decades has virtually doubled the deficit spending of the last. and every single government report says that our entitlements will not be here, at all, if we keep on going with the way things are now. and all the reports also tell us, that entitlements currently make up the bulk of our mandatory spending, and will continue to make up even more in the coming decade. and i ask you this. where are the democrats' solutions to any of this? rather than trying to fix anything themselves, they're more content to let the republicans make proposals, and then attack them for it. the democrats seem to be defending the status quo, in spite of the fact that all these programs are going belly up. where are their solutions?

you want to bring the troops home, fine. in an ideal world, i would too. but slashing military spending WILL NOT solve the problem of the federal budget crisis we're in. and it's not something you can tax your way out of either. at least not the way it's done now. right now, half of americans don't pay ANY taxes at all, myself included, and probably you too. ideally, i would like to go to a consumption tax, or at least simplify the tax codes and eliminate loopholes. to tell the truth, i don't think the government should be subsidizing ANYTHING. so why stop at big oil? how about GE, GM, NPR, PBS, planned parenthood, paying farmers more to burn their corn than to produce it for food, green energy, EVERYTHING! get rid of it. the government needs to get out of the business of business.

i mean we have to get serious about cutting everywhere. we have to get serious about balancing the budget, or we're going to wind up like greece. and if this is going to happen, then we HAVE to try to restructure the biggest part of our mandatory spending. what i'm suggesting is that it doesn't help to frame the debate as if evil republicans want to kill people, or make people suffer. until both sides get serious about it, that's what it's going to be. they're feeding a fear of change. right now, we can make changes and still save these programs, but that's not going to be the case if we do nothing until the programs expire.

OFFLINE

OK.  So, let the poor people have all those unwanted children.  Do you think they will be an asset to our country or will they cost us more tax payer money?  Abstinence is a great ideal in theory but we all know how well that works, just ask Bristol Palin.  
How much money goes to the Pentagon every year?
Check this out...
May 26, 2011 -- House Passes McCollum Amendment to Limit Pentagon Spending on Military Bands

Amendment Reduces Spending on Musicians, Instruments, and Performances by $120 Million in FY12

Washington, DC – Today, the House of Representatives passed Congresswoman Betty McCollum's (MN-04) amendment (#153) to reduce the Department of Defense's spending on military musical bands by $120 million. Adopted as part of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1540), this amendment will cap Pentagon spending on military bands at $200 million. In Fiscal Year 2011, the Department of Defense estimates will spend $320 million on its music programs.

"There's no question that we need to get America's budget under control. The question is how," said Congresswoman McCollum. "Families and communities across this country are being asked to make incredible sacrifices in the name of fiscal responsibility. It's time to ask the Pentagon to make a small sacrifice in their own musical budget. Military bands have an important place in our nation's history, but in a fiscal crisis, $200 million should be enough to continue that tradition."

The Army currently has over 100 bands employing 4,600 full-time professional musicians and support staff. The National Guard, Air Force, and Navy also have dozens of bands with full-time musicians. Over the years, the number of bands and their cost to taxpayers has continued to grow, in part because Congress conducts no oversight over this portion of the budget. According to one senior defense analyst cited in a May 18, 2011 article in The Hill, the Pentagon could spend as much as $50 billion on military bands over the next 50 years.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum serves on the House Appropriations and Budget Committees."

Do you want that much money to go to a musical budget?

OFFLINE

we could completely cut out all defense spending, and still not have a handle on the problem of deficit spending.

OFFLINE

I dont support slashing the defense budget at will.  But some policies might be eliminated and certain programs might be dropped.  Our military might be better served if we streamline it somewhat.  Focus more on special ops and covert means of waging war and less on multi million-dollar jet engines that even the Pentagon doesnt want.