BoatShoes;1426638 wrote:

No offense, but he already got his tax increases and promised cuts from those. Those cuts have not happened so why should the other side give into more tax increases to get the same cuts that Obama already agreed to?

jmog;1426680 wrote:No offense, but he already got his tax increases and promised cuts from those. Those cuts have not happened so why should the other side give into more tax increases to get the same cuts that Obama already agreed to?

Obama, in his quest to appease the centrist deficit hawks has argued for a balanced approach...generally the idea that spending cuts planned over a decade should be roughly equal to revenue planned over a decade. He was re-elected on that argument.

Thus far, he has signed $1.5 trillion in planned spending cuts over a decade and has signed $630 billion in new revenue planned over a decade. The planned Revenue Increases and Planned Programmatic Spending Cuts in the 2011 Budget Control Act have both gone into affect. You could just as easily say, "The GOP has already gotten spending cuts" especially considering that the ratio of budgeted spending cuts to budgeted revenue is currently about 3 to 1.



Add in the fact that the "Revenue" he's seeking now by and large is often called "Spending in the Tax Code" by conservative economists like Martin Feldstein you might even say he's really just going after a disguised form of spending any way. So he's going after spending in the tax code, proposing medicare cuts and a chained CPI for social security.

0b@ma iz 5uCh a HuGe L1B!!!!

You can turn in an o-trap type dissertation full of graphs and the like, but that doesn't change the fact that he got a compromise and raised the rates on the highest income bracket but then went back on his promises of reduction in entitlement spending.

He NOW wants to reform SS ONLY if it is tied to more tax revenues, but he already agreed to entitlement reform with the last set of tax increases.

That is the facts, no dissertations and fancy graphs can change the facts. You are just skirting the issue with a lot of text to try to confuse those who don't pay any attention to reality.

MEMES.

jmog;1426871 wrote:You are just skirting the issue with a lot of text to try to confuse those who don't pay any attention to reality.

jmog;1426871 wrote:You can turn in an o-trap type dissertation full of graphs and the like, but that doesn't change the fact that he got a compromise and raised the rates on the highest income bracket but then went back on his promises of reduction in entitlement spending.

He NOW wants to reform SS ONLY if it is tied to more tax revenues, but he already agreed to entitlement reform with the last set of tax increases.

That is the facts, no dissertations and fancy graphs can change the facts. You are just skirting the issue with a lot of text to try to confuse those who don't pay any attention to reality.

BoatShoes;1426907 wrote:

All this proves is that even Boatshoes "memes" are of dissertation length.

jmog;1426909 wrote:All this proves is that even Boatshoes "memes" are of dissertation length.

gut;1426886 wrote:

^C@uzed Teh Depress10n cuZ it Gav3d t3h p00rz n0 inc3n1v3 t0 w0rk

Soviet Union had bread lines, too (and that's not even during a global great depression). Or perhaps they didn't have enough socialism, either. Next....

BoatShoes;1426918 wrote: