Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[g5000]

Did anyone ever find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget? Of course not, just a lot of partisan whining.

I have pointed you to it several times. Are you clamping your hands over your eyes?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. labor market leaped forward in January, capping the greatest three-month jobs gain in 17 years and delivering the biggest wage increase since 2008.

Jobs Report Crushes It - Bloomberg Business

You're jerks and hypocrites since every time there is good news you claim otherwise. If Bush Cheney were in office today, this news would be shouted from every corner of the conservative world as proof voodoo economics is the greatest.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. labor market leaped forward in January, capping the greatest three-month jobs gain in 17 years and delivering the biggest wage increase since 2008.

Jobs Report Crushes It - Bloomberg Business

You're jerks and hypocrites since every time there is good news you claim otherwise. If Bush Cheney were in office today, this news would be shouted from every corner of the conservative world as proof voodoo economics is the greatest.

A Republican could have pulled it off in half the time. That we've recovered albeit very slowly is proof of how resilient our economy is even when besieged by communists. It recovered in spite of Obama Bin Lyin', not because of him.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What part of that is worse than the Iraq War? For starters...

You mean the war that was unanimously supported by Democrats and Republicans...that one?

No I mean the one that 147 Democrats voted against,

and 7 Republicans voted against.

Nice spin...you added both senate and houses...hows this - I can do it too!

77 Democrats in the Senate alone voted for the war...including Hillary, Biden and Reid.
At any rate let's not derail the thread from you alluding to how awesome it has been under Obama

 

[Judicial review]

The thing is, the only time you guys want to "cut spending' is when the other party is in the White House.

your Boy Reagan ran up more debt than the Previous 39 Presidents combined buying expensive toys for the military.

Your boy Bush took Surpluses and turned them into Trillion Dollar deficits- plus gave us wars and Recessions.

But the minute the black guy gets in, you are all for "Cutting Spending".

It's funny how Clinton and Obama held the line on spending while Reagan, Bush, and Bush blew up the budget year after year, but it's the "libs" who can't control spending according to cons. What a joke cons are.

Wait...did you just say Obama held the line on spending???

Look it up dipshit. Bush blew up the 2009 budget. That was not Obama's budget. After that, we have seen barely any growth in the budget at all. Reagan nearly doubled it in his eight years. Again, another con with no brain.

Dude, in the grand scheme of htings is doesn't fucking matter what Bush did. What matters is what Obama has done, continues to do, and proposes to do. You can't defend him. Now stop being a fucking moron and save face.

Yeah, like it doesn't matter that Raygun tripled the national debt, or that Shrub 41 doubled it again in only four years, or that Clinton BALANCED the budget, which Shrub 43 destroyed in his first six months and doubled the national debt yet again adding more than all POTUS's added together, and destroyed the U.S. AND global economies, and left it for Obama to clean up.

In the "grand scheme of things", a moron doesn't think it matters.

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It makes no sense to cut the social safety net...

Spending on the "social safety net" represents 67.7% of all federal spending and soaks up 84.2% of total federal revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf
Cutting spending on the "social safety net" is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It makes no sense to cut the social safety net...

Spending on the "social safety net" represents 67.7% of all federal spending and soaks up 84.2% of total federal revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf
Cutting spending on the "social safety net" is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

Absolutely, only now it isn't a safety net any more. Thanks to Obama it is once again free stuff for the taking to anyone willing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It makes no sense to cut the social safety net...

Spending on the "social safety net" represents 67.7% of all federal spending and soaks up 84.2% of total federal revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf
Cutting spending on the "social safety net" is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

What might be the consequence of cutting spending on the "social safety net"? Have you even considered such a question?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It makes no sense to cut the social safety net...

Spending on the "social safety net" represents 67.7% of all federal spending and soaks up 84.2% of total federal revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf
Cutting spending on the "social safety net" is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

Absolutely, only now it isn't a safety net any more. Thanks to Obama it is once again free stuff for the taking to anyone willing.

Indeed.
Of course, another sensical reason for cutting the "social safety net" is it ultimately boils down to state-enforced involuntary servitude, where some people are forced to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

OMG - just have to mention, Obama on TV now talking about how one of the most important things to do for the economy is to invest in infrastructure.
Can you believe this?????
This is EXACTLY what he said 6 years ago..and spent $billions that was already supposed to go to infrastructure but was instead deferred to pet programs.
Unbelievable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What might be the consequence of cutting spending on the "social safety net"?

Smaller deficits, less debt, less government influence over the lives of both those who receive government benefits and those that provide them, and, best of all, a net reduction in the level of state-enforced involuntary servitude inherent in the "social safety net".

Why do you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

Bush did more than most Republicans. Namely he warned about the disaster that loomed if Freddie and Fannie were not reformed. John McCain also attempted to reform the ill conceived subprime lending scheme. Given that most Republicans just went along to get along, I'd say Bush helped set the high end of the grading curve on GOP opposition. Still, in retrospect, he should have done more.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What might be the consequence of cutting spending on the "social safety net"?

1) Less generational poverty.
2) Less people abusing a system that, by design, encourages abuse.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

OH MY GOD - Obama just said "I am going to brag a little...we made a lot of good decisions that - wait for it - ENDED THE RECESSION"..

Wow

 

[Siete]

It makes no sense to cut the social safety net...

Spending on the "social safety net" represents 67.7% of all federal spending and soaks up 84.2% of total federal revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf
Cutting spending on the "social safety net" is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

House passage was 219-206, and followed seven hours of vote searching by Republicans after Democrats dropped support, complaining that the bill included a huge benefit to big banks that could leave taxpayers with a bill for a new round of bank bailouts like those that followed the 2008 economic crisis.

Earlier Thursday, a House procedural vote on the $1.1 trillion spending bill for the 2015 fiscal year almost went down to defeat via a 213-213 tie, until a Republican House member reversed his no vote to allow deliberations on the measure to continue. The bill had lost all 196 Democratic votes because of opposition to the language that changes safeguards in the 2010 Dodd Frank Law. The provision scaling back the safeguards was added by Republican lawmakers.


yup, cut spending Republicans in all their glory.

oh wait ...

 

[bripat9643]

It makes no sense to cut the social safety net...

Spending on the "social safety net" represents 67.7% of all federal spending and soaks up 84.2% of total federal revenue.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf
Cutting spending on the "social safety net" is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

What might be the consequence of cutting spending on the "social safety net"? Have you even considered such a question?

Less poverty. Fewer illegitimate children. Vastly improved economic growth. Less crime. More wealth for everyone.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

Bush did more than most Republicans. Namely he warned about the disaster that loomed if Freddie and Fannie were not reformed. John McCain also attempted to reform the ill conceived subprime lending scheme. Given that most Republicans just went along to get along, I'd say Bush helped set the high end of the grading curve on GOP opposition. Still, in retrospect, he should have done more.

Bush's guilt is he did not actually DO anything to stop the onslaught.
Yes he certainly did predict the disaster, and said it was going to happen. But he didn't act, he didn't make it a priority....course there was that whole 9/11 thing.
But again as far as Presidential blame, Clinton gets most by far. Most of the policy changes that made the collapse at least occurred during his presidency, and others he had a direct hand in both implementation and design.

 

[hangover]

Con replies prove that if they ever get control, they'll destroy SS, Medicare, healthcare, food stamps for children, and aid to the poor. And they'll be putting the elderly, the poor, the sick and children in ovens to clean them off their streets. Rots of ruck with your final solution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Con replies prove that if they ever get control, they'll destroy SS, Medicare, healthcare, food stamps for children, and aid to the poor. And they'll be putting the elderly, the poor, the sick and children in ovens to clean them off their streets. Rots of ruke with your final solution.

Your reply proves you're a mindless partisan bigot that blindly supports state-enforced involuntary servitude.