Writerbuckeye;725676 wrote:So if the R's send a bill that massively cuts the government to the Senate, and it dies there, or gets vetoed by Obama, the R's are to blame?

Absolutely because (a) they're evil rich Republicans and (b) they didn't try hard enough. They'll obviously need to step aside and allow the Democrats to demonstrate true fiscally responsible governance. :rolleyes:

Writerbuckeye;725676 wrote:So if the R's send a bill that massively cuts the government to the Senate, and it dies there, or gets vetoed by Obama, the R's are to blame?

I'd love to see a budget proposal that funds the government from the House that funds the government to 9/30/11, even if it dies in the Senate. But, we haven't even seen that proposal yet. Instead we just see temp. measures that pass the buck.

ptown_trojans_1;726009 wrote:I'd love to see a budget proposal that funds the government from the House that funds the government to 9/30/11, even if it dies in the Senate. But, we haven't even seen that proposal yet. Instead we just see temp. measures that pass the buck.

The Repubs have obviously learned a valuable lesson from the Dems.

Writerbuckeye;725676 wrote:So if the R's send a bill that massively cuts the government to the Senate, and it dies there, or gets vetoed by Obama, the R's are to blame?

Yes, this is how it's always been portrayed and reported. Doesn't anyone find it odd that the Dem controlled 111th Congress rammed through the most egregious and outlandish spending appropriations of ALL TIME, and now, since the Republicans are having difficulty de-railing the runaway train, they are to blame for the economic ills? I'm on the Tea Party side and would love to see more cost cutting coming out of the Boehner gang, but he's just the doctor trying to fix the patient that won't stop bleeding...and quite naturally, it's his fault, not the decades of abuse the patient gladly subjected his body.

And, as always, it's Bush's fault nothing is happening.

believer;726068 wrote:The Repubs have obviously learned a valuable lesson from the Dems.

Yep lol. Both are one in the same right now.

R's are "cutting" the budget, but still not passing a budget, just a temp measure, so it is really nothing.
I'd like them to at least pass a measure to fund the government until the end of Sept. If they are really serious about the budget, they need to at least pass a measure in the one house they control.

BGFalcons82;726106 wrote:Yes, this is how it's always been portrayed and reported. Doesn't anyone find it odd that the Dem controlled 111th Congress rammed through the most egregious and outlandish spending appropriations of ALL TIME, and now, since the Republicans are having difficulty de-railing the runaway train, they are to blame for the economic ills?

The Dems are hoping that the light the Repubs see at the end of the tunnel is the freight train they've set in motion.

This is why I've said and still believe it doesn't matter who is in charge. Until this country defaults and collapses, nothing is ever going to change. Republican or Democrat, they are all going to pass the buck farther and farther into the future.

tk421;726176 wrote:This is why I've said and still believe it doesn't matter who is in charge. Until this country defaults and collapses, nothing is ever going to change. Republican or Democrat, they are all going to pass the buck farther and farther into the future.

That or people realize their SS and Medicare payments will stop.

ptown_trojans_1;727480 wrote:That or people realize their SS and Medicare payments will stop.

Even if you tell (most of) them that, they won't believe you. And that is the real problem.

ptown_trojans_1;727480 wrote:That or people realize their SS and Medicare payments will stop.

I agree. The day this happens the Feds will have a much larger crisis on their hands than wars and outrageously irresponsible debt. NAW....we can always just print more money and pass some new Porkulus Sammiches around.

Writerbuckeye;725676 wrote:So if the R's send a bill that massively cuts the government to the Senate, and it dies there, or gets vetoed by Obama, the R's are to blame?

Both parties need to understand that these "My way or the highway" proposals don't have a chance in hell of getting approval in both chambers. What the R's in the House need to do is work out a proposal that HAS A CHANCE OF PASSAGE. What they're doing now is simply posturing, which is a fail. They need to get off their high horse and either show the public they are serious about getting the job done or admit they haven't got a clue.

stlouiedipalma;728982 wrote:Both parties need to understand that these "My way or the highway" proposals don't have a chance in hell of getting approval in both chambers. What the R's in the House need to do is work out a proposal that HAS A CHANCE OF PASSAGE. What they're doing now is simply posturing, which is a fail. They need to get off their high horse and either show the public they are serious about getting the job done or admit they haven't got a clue.

Sounds noble enough stlouie, but the people kicked the Dems out and sent the Repubs in to do EXACTLY what they're doing...proposing the changes needed to right the ship. Seriously...why in the hell should the Repubs meet the Dems in the middle by "working out a proposal"? Did the Dems allow the Repubs a voice in the health care "debate"? No. Did the Dems listen to the Repubs who expressed concern that the Porkulus Package was outrageously expensive? No.

My way or the highway? The Dems have that down pat.

stlouiedipalma;728982 wrote:Both parties need to understand that these "My way or the highway" proposals don't have a chance in hell of getting approval in both chambers. What the R's in the House need to do is work out a proposal that HAS A CHANCE OF PASSAGE. What they're doing now is simply posturing, which is a fail. They need to get off their high horse and either show the public they are serious about getting the job done or admit they haven't got a clue.

I disagree.

The conservatives have had sand kicked in their face for so long they can almost make glass. It's time for the liberals to admit THEY HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE and learn to cut cut cut. This time, as compared to 1996, the conservatives have the public on their side as the liberals spendaholic policies are driving this country to economic ruin. I say pass a massive austerity plan, publicize why we were in a crisis (especially if it doesn't pass), and shove it up the Senate's ass. Let them be the ones to tell us we don't have a spending problem. Put the monkey on their back for one freaking time. It is TIME to stand on principles and fight the fight we've been avoiding for 30 years. Man-up, Boehner, and give 'em hell. Hard.

Edit: Here is a link to the latest idea from Eric Cantor. Wherein the House will deem the budget to have passed and force the Senate to either sign on to it, or shut down the gubmint. The language further states that if the gubmint is shut down, then all Congressional and Presidential salaries will NOT be retroactive and they would give up their pay while the shutdown is in effect. Unconstitutional you say? So what...so is ObamaKare, so let's fight fire with fire.

Looks like Brother Cantor has given the Speaker a fresh set of testicles. Hey Harry....how's your pair?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/30/fragile-budget-talks-resume-parties-trade-extreme-charges/

BGFalcons82;729104 wrote:I disagree.

The conservatives have had sand kicked in their face for so long they can almost make glass. It's time for the liberals to admit THEY HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE and learn to cut cut cut. This time, as compared to 1996, the conservatives have the public on their side as the liberals spendaholic policies are driving this country to economic ruin. I say pass a massive austerity plan, publicize why we were in a crisis (especially if it doesn't pass), and shove it up the Senate's ass. Let them be the ones to tell us we don't have a spending problem. Put the monkey on their back for one freaking time. It is TIME to stand on principles and fight the fight we've been avoiding for 30 years. Man-up, Boehner, and give 'em hell. Hard.

Edit: Here is a link to the latest idea from Eric Cantor. Wherein the House will deem the budget to have passed and force the Senate to either sign on to it, or shut down the gubmint. The language further states that if the gubmint is shut down, then all Congressional and Presidential salaries will NOT be retroactive and they would give up their pay while the shutdown is in effect. Unconstitutional you say? So what...so is ObamaKare, so let's fight fire with fire.

Looks like Brother Cantor has given the Speaker a fresh set of testicles. Hey Harry....how's your pair?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/30/fragile-budget-talks-resume-parties-trade-extreme-charges/

And when you pass that "massive austerity plan", you'll see public support run and hide. People talk a big game but when cuts affect them they'll turn on you in a heartbeat.

As for Eric Cantor giving the Speaker testicles, haven't you figured out that when he speaks, Boehner has his hand up his back making his lips move. Cantor doesn't say anything publicly unless it is pre-approved from the "Speaker".

So I take it from your post that you are in favor of a shutdown, you are in favor of defaulting and you will gladly go down this road because you've "had sand kicked in your face so long you can almost make glass". What a big, fat crock of shit.

stlouiedipalma;729279 wrote:So I take it from your post that you are in favor of a shutdown, you are in favor of defaulting and you will gladly go down this road because you've "had sand kicked in your face so long you can almost make glass". What a big, fat crock of shit.

Yep, I'm in complete favor of it. Why, you ask so eloquently? Because we are broke. There is no money left. There is nothing left. To continue to pass Continuing Resolutions (CR's) is to hide our heads in the sand and pray the storm goes away. It's not going anywhere; matter of fact, it's growing by the day to the tune of about $3,000,000 per MINUTE. By the way, don't you like the idea that these "leaders" don't get a dime of salary until they fix the problem? Makes my heart warm.

Until our "leaders" get a grip on reality and face this growing beast with brass balls, we are all headed for your crock of shit. Time's up. The alarm has been ringing for quite awhile and we either wake up to fix it or go to economic hell. Which do you prefer, Mr. Crock?

BGFalcons82;729104 wrote:I disagree.

The conservatives have had sand kicked in their face for so long they can almost make glass. It's time for the liberals to admit THEY HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE and learn to cut cut cut. This time, as compared to 1996, the conservatives have the public on their side as the liberals spendaholic policies are driving this country to economic ruin. I say pass a massive austerity plan, publicize why we were in a crisis (especially if it doesn't pass), and shove it up the Senate's ass. Let them be the ones to tell us we don't have a spending problem. Put the monkey on their back for one freaking time. It is TIME to stand on principles and fight the fight we've been avoiding for 30 years. Man-up, Boehner, and give 'em hell. Hard.

Edit: Here is a link to the latest idea from Eric Cantor. Wherein the House will deem the budget to have passed and force the Senate to either sign on to it, or shut down the gubmint. The language further states that if the gubmint is shut down, then all Congressional and Presidential salaries will NOT be retroactive and they would give up their pay while the shutdown is in effect. Unconstitutional you say? So what...so is ObamaKare, so let's fight fire with fire.

Looks like Brother Cantor has given the Speaker a fresh set of testicles. Hey Harry....how's your pair?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/30/fragile-budget-talks-resume-parties-trade-extreme-charges/

Please tell me that you at least know that a massive austerity plan as the economy recovers from a recession would have disastrous effects and make the recession and the longer term deficit outlook much worse? Feel free to call for austerity but at least tell me you know it would be terribly bad? It is the same mistake that FDR and Congress made when they raised tax rates to fund the war effort instead of running even greater deficits.

BGFalcons82;729593 wrote:Yep, I'm in complete favor of it. Why, you ask so eloquently? Because we are broke. There is no money left. There is nothing left. To continue to pass Continuing Resolutions (CR's) is to hide our heads in the sand and pray the storm goes away. It's not going anywhere; matter of fact, it's growing by the day to the tune of about $3,000,000 per MINUTE. By the way, don't you like the idea that these "leaders" don't get a dime of salary until they fix the problem? Makes my heart warm.

Until our "leaders" get a grip on reality and face this growing beast with brass balls, we are all headed for your crock of shit. Time's up. The alarm has been ringing for quite awhile and we either wake up to fix it or go to economic hell. Which do you prefer, Mr. Crock?

You sound like Billy Graham. U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP has been much higher before. We're getting there but the market is still supporting our debt and there is concern on the horizon but your solution would create even greater deficits down the road. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

In fact, the stagnant economic times of the late 70's was consistent with the U.S. having the lowest debt as a percentage of GDP since the 30's.

Too much Dave Ramsey methinks.

That's right, we forgot that living within ones means is only for us lowly common peons. The mighty government clearly needs to spend way more money than they take in. God forbid the government has a balanced budget.

BoatShoes;730327 wrote:You sound like Billy Graham. U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP has been much higher before. We're getting there but the market is still supporting our debt and there is concern on the horizon but your solution would create even greater deficits down the road. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

In fact, the stagnant economic times of the late 70's was consistent with the U.S. having the lowest debt as a percentage of GDP since the 30's.

Too much Dave Ramsey methinks.

You sound like Jesse Jackson. You apparently believe the Feds must spend their way to prosperity. Your solution is definitely creating outrageous deficits. In fact, we have already arrived.

Too much Nancy Pelosi methinks.

tk421;730335 wrote:That's right, we forgot that living within ones means is only for us lowly common peons. The mighty government clearly needs to spend way more money than they take in. God forbid the government has a balanced budget.

You're speaking in this rhetorical manner that is devoid of economic relevance. It is generally agreed upon that GDP is essentially the gross national income. That is to say that GDP is a good indicator of standard of living. In the great recession, millions of people lost their jobs and had to "tighten their belts." Consequently conservatives are saying, "that means gubment has to tighten their belt to!" But, this is the exact time when the government should not tighten their belt and should borrow money to spend in place of the private loss in spending because that is the only way to preserve the GDP and theoretically the standard of living.

3 trillion in government outlays is a large amount of are GDP and is necessary to make up for the loss in output caused by the great recession.

The government should not be worried about running a surplus or a balanced budget yet! Those concerns are nearing on the horizon but if you don't do enough to make up for lost GDP we're going to end up like Japan and lose an entire decade because conservatives think deficits don't matter during boom times and they're the only thing that matters during rough times WHEN THIS IS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS!!!! If we had ran surpluses or a balanced budget during the boom times of 2001-2007 we would not have as great of a looming debt crisis.

If tk421 had his/her way, things would undoubtedly get worse in the short term (and probably the long term as the debt would just get more burdensome as unemployment would continue to remain high).

Some folks believe this to be a good thing...that it is a necessary purge. And that is fine I suppose if you believe that...but if you're going to call for austerity at least carry with that the reality that you want people and america to experience harder times.

believer;730336 wrote:You sound like Jesse Jackson. You apparently believe the Feds must spend their way to prosperity. Your solution is definitely creating outrageous deficits. In fact, we have already arrived.

Too much Nancy Pelosi methinks.

Yes, I believe that when monetary policy is not enough and interest rates are at historic lows that the government should use fiscal policy to make up for lost output as a result of a severe recession. That is when you're supposed to run a deficit. You don't run deficits in good economic times. Just because previous administrations dating back to the 60's have run deficits when they weren't supposed to does not mean that the prescription for helping ease the pain of the loss of output changes.

And the thing is...you believe the same thing but you just don't get it. You advocated for Barry to keep the Bush tax cuts, knowing full well that this would assuredly allow for a large deficit as they were not accompanied with necessary spending cuts. You can't be taken seriously on your views on balanced budgets unless you would refuse to accept the idea of tax cuts without accompanying spending cuts.

The thing is we haven't been in a recession for quite some time and we have added jobs every month for several months now. It's not at a brisk pace but that's almost good seeing how as soon as things do heat up or inflation is going to get ugle.

BoatShoes;730338 wrote:And the thing is...you believe the same thing but you just don't get it. You advocated for Barry to keep the Bush tax cuts, knowing full well that this would assuredly allow for a large deficit as they were not accompanied with necessary spending cuts. You can't be taken seriously on your views on balanced budgets unless you would refuse to accept the idea of tax cuts without accompanying spending cuts.

Yes I did advocate keeping the Bush tax cuts AND I've also been a strong proponent of spending cuts.

And I'm sorry, but the notion that the Feds need to run deficits during tough economic times as a matter of economic policy (IE: "priming the pump") is and always has been a huge fail.

Methinks Boat has read too much Paul Krugman.

BoatShoes;730325 wrote:Please tell me that you at least know that a massive austerity plan as the economy recovers from a recession would have disastrous effects and make the recession and the longer term deficit outlook much worse? Feel free to call for austerity but at least tell me you know it would be terribly bad? It is the same mistake that FDR and Congress made when they raised tax rates to fund the war effort instead of running even greater deficits.

We need to choose our poison. There is no doubt there will be a price to pay for stealing money from our children, living on foreign investors, and printing money as fast as the presses will take the ink. You seem to think that we can keep on keeping on. What was the administration's last projection...trillion dollar deficits for the next 5 years? Do you really believe interest rates will be artificially held down for the next 5 years as well as pressures mount to fund our appetite for spending? What happens when servicing the debt becomes the largest budget item? Hmmm?

We either pay the price now or pay it later. The pain quotient will be far less now than later and affect far fewer. Or are you one of the believer's that cutting now will kill 70,000 children? http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/31/obama-administration-gop-cuts-would-kill-70000-kids/

By the way, when absurd shit comes out of the Obama administration like this, I KNOW he hears the Tea Party. I love to see them squirm into utter nonsense. Helps the cause, y'know?!