Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[ScienceRocks]

I'm not afraid!

-Cut welfare(food stamps, unemployment) back to 2006 levels
-Close many bases throughout the middle east, europe, etc.
Shift much of the resources to supplying our troops with the armor and tools they deserve. Not just cut...Fund r@d. What ever we feel that doesn't need to go to that can be cut.
-Trim fat from the government

I'd rather have a fully modern millitary that doesn't suffer from being without armor, etc. It's stupid to baby sit other nations.

 

[saveliberty]

Why, he was trying to compromise. Now he knows better than that.

Just what was he giving up? Name one thing.

Obama had put on the table $4 of cuts per $1 of new revenue during the debt limit negotiations. That would be a surrender -- thank God and Grover Norquis, the Reps were too stupid, too arrogant and too scared to take it.

None of those "cuts" would happen in Obama's term by design. Fail.

 

[Oddball]

Why, he was trying to compromise. Now he knows better than that.

Just what was he giving up? Name one thing.

Obama had put on the table $4 of cuts per $1 of new revenue during the debt limit negotiations. That would be a surrender -- thank God and Grover Norquis, the Reps were too stupid, too arrogant and too scared to take it.

What cuts?...Where?...When?....How much?...Cuts in the here and now, or deferred until some unnamed later date?

Name 'em....I defy you.

 

[freedombecki]

OMG, this is getting funnier by the minute.

According to the latest accounts, Obama is pushing very hard on taxing the rich -- not only expiration of Bush tax cuts, but also rising the dividend and estate taxes. In exchange, Dems are proposing modest spending cuts, leaving it to Republicans to offer what else they see fit to axe.

Now that is where it gets comical -- Republicans refuse to detail any additional spending cuts! They say they are desperately needed, huge cuts too. But they are afraid -- and for a good reason too -- that if they themselves would put any specific proposals regarding the entitlement programs on the table, the voters would punish them.

So Republicnas are practically begging the Dems to do the honor and commit a political suicide.

Now tell me -- aren't they cute? Saying no to them is like taking a candy from a little girl -- breaks one's heart! I see John Boehner crying again.

You're happy the economy will falter on account of overspending? That is sick on so many levels.

 

[regent]

The choice seems to be cut Medicare, Social Security and programs for the people, or keep the tax breaks for the wealthy. That seems to be our choice.
The problem for Republicans is trying to make those tax breaks for the wealthy sound fair, patriotic, and very American, and make Medicare and Social Security sound like socialism, communism, evil and degrading.

 

[freedombecki]

The choice seems to be cut Medicare, Social Security and programs for the people, or keep the tax breaks for the wealthy. That seems to be our choice.
The problem for Republicans is trying to make those tax breaks for the wealthy sound fair, patriotic, and very American, and make Medicare and Social Security sound like socialism, communism, evil and degrading.

So you're satisfied with 15% of people who'd like to be working unemployed?

You want jobs, fella--lead, follow, or at least, get out of the way while we Republicans light a fire under Obama's lazyass feelgood butt.

 

[saveliberty]

The choice seems to be cut Medicare, Social Security and programs for the people, or keep the tax breaks for the wealthy. That seems to be our choice.
The problem for Republicans is trying to make those tax breaks for the wealthy sound fair, patriotic, and very American, and make Medicare and Social Security sound like socialism, communism, evil and degrading.

I found part of your problem. Put it in bold type. Your welcome.

 

[Katzndogz]

Every time democrats want to cloud the issue they bring out seniors (who paid into the system) and the disabled. The problem isn't seniors or the disabled. It's those manufacturing a disability. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that 6'2" buffed out ex con that prevents him from working, except some bogus claim of disability. He has a bad back. He needs medical marijuana.

If we took everyone who committed a crime off public benefits AND their families and extended families off welfare we'd make a big dent in the entitlement problem. Every kid old enough to rob a gas station is capable of working. If they are qualified for nothing at all, send them to the fields to work and cut down on illegal immigration.

 

[regent]

The choice seems to be cut Medicare, Social Security and programs for the people, or keep the tax breaks for the wealthy. That seems to be our choice.
The problem for Republicans is trying to make those tax breaks for the wealthy sound fair, patriotic, and very American, and make Medicare and Social Security sound like socialism, communism, evil and degrading.

So you're satisfied with 15% of people who'd like to be working unemployed?

You want jobs, fella--lead, follow, or at least, get out of the way while we Republicans light a fire under Obama's lazyass feelgood butt.

Yeah we had eight years of Republicans lighting fires and what did the nation look like after they had were done. A huge debt, two wars, tax breaks for the rich and a nation sliding into a major depression. And even after the last election, still the Republican talk of lighting fires and keeping the tax breaks for the rich. Another Republican fire-lighting session and it would be good-bye America.

 

[saveliberty]

Yeah we had eight years of Republicans lighting fires and what did the nation look like after they had were done. A huge debt, two wars, tax breaks for the rich and a nation sliding into a major depression. And even after the last election, still the Republican talk of lighting fires and keeping the tax breaks for the rich. Another Republican fire-lighting session and it would be good-bye America.

The first six years, Democrats controlled Congress. The last two Republicans have tried to put the brakes on Obama's run away spending. Thanks for asking.

 

[regent]

Yeah we had eight years of Republicans lighting fires and what did the nation look like after they had were done. A huge debt, two wars, tax breaks for the rich and a nation sliding into a major depression. And even after the last election, still the Republican talk of lighting fires and keeping the tax breaks for the rich. Another Republican fire-lighting session and it would be good-bye America.

The first six years, Democrats controlled Congress. The last two Republicans have tried to put the brakes on Obama's run away spending. Thanks for asking.

I think I see one of the problems, Reagan's tripling the national debt, and Bush's doubling the national debt is not putting the brakes on run-away spending, but you might try it and see if it gets backers?

 

[saveliberty]

Yeah we had eight years of Republicans lighting fires and what did the nation look like after they had were done. A huge debt, two wars, tax breaks for the rich and a nation sliding into a major depression. And even after the last election, still the Republican talk of lighting fires and keeping the tax breaks for the rich. Another Republican fire-lighting session and it would be good-bye America.

The first six years, Democrats controlled Congress. The last two Republicans have tried to put the brakes on Obama's run away spending. Thanks for asking.

I think I see one of the problems, Reagan's tripling the national debt, and Bush's doubling the national debt is not putting the brakes on run-away spending, but you might try it and see if it gets backers?

Thanks for conceeding you were wrong. Had to shift the timeframe I see. Care to move it up to Obama's term? I thought not.

 

[regent]

The first six years, Democrats controlled Congress. The last two Republicans have tried to put the brakes on Obama's run away spending. Thanks for asking.

I think I see one of the problems, Reagan's tripling the national debt, and Bush's doubling the national debt is not putting the brakes on run-away spending, but you might try it and see if it gets backers?

Thanks for conceeding you were wrong. Had to shift the timeframe I see. Care to move it up to Obama's term? I thought not.

Don't mind at all, but I thought Republicans were proud of Bush and Reagan's presidential terms. Also you might check the syntax in this sentence:
The first six years, Democrats controlled Congress. The last two Republicans have tried to put the brakes on Obama's run away spending.

 

[Katzndogz]

To democrats if republicans raise taxes by 1%, democrats can raise them by 90%, it's all a raise, same thing.

 

[saveliberty]

I think I see one of the problems, Reagan's tripling the national debt, and Bush's doubling the national debt is not putting the brakes on run-away spending, but you might try it and see if it gets backers?

Thanks for conceeding you were wrong. Had to shift the timeframe I see. Care to move it up to Obama's term? I thought not.

Don't mind at all, but I thought Republicans were proud of Bush and Reagan's presidential terms. Also you might check the syntax in this sentence:
The first six years, Democrats controlled Congress. The last two Republicans have tried to put the brakes on Obama's run away spending.

You presume I'm a Republican.

 

[bripat9643]

The choice seems to be cut Medicare, Social Security and programs for the people, or keep the tax breaks for the wealthy. That seems to be our choice.
The problem for Republicans is trying to make those tax breaks for the wealthy sound fair, patriotic, and very American, and make Medicare and Social Security sound like socialism, communism, evil and degrading.

So you're satisfied with 15% of people who'd like to be working unemployed?

You want jobs, fella--lead, follow, or at least, get out of the way while we Republicans light a fire under Obama's lazyass feelgood butt.

Yeah we had eight years of Republicans lighting fires and what did the nation look like after they had were done. A huge debt, two wars, tax breaks for the rich and a nation sliding into a major depression. And even after the last election, still the Republican talk of lighting fires and keeping the tax breaks for the rich. Another Republican fire-lighting session and it would be good-bye America.

"lighting fires?" What the fuck are you talking about? The current recession is entirely the result of the sub-prime mortgage debacle which Dims created by forcing banks to loan money to people who can't pay them. It had nothing to do with Republicans "lighting fires."

 

[ilia25]

Just what was he giving up? Name one thing.

Obama had put on the table $4 of cuts per $1 of new revenue during the debt limit negotiations. That would be a surrender -- thank God and Grover Norquis, the Reps were too stupid, too arrogant and too scared to take it.

None of those "cuts" would happen in Obama's term by design. Fail.

Seriously? That WAS the subject of the negotiations -- cutting the deficits over the next 10 years!

Republicans wanted to achieve that by spending cuts alone -- and they set this as a condition for their agreeing to rise the debt limit.

If Obama and his advisers were sensible people, they would answer to Republican demands by telling them to go fuck themselves. The US don't have short term debt problems -- and long term issues should be tackled only after the depression is over, and mostly by increasing taxes on the rich.

But the Administration believed then that they would score more points by looking for a bipartisan solution, so they started negotiations by proposing a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. That was already a betrayal.

Then Obama went over the heads of the Congress Democrats by proposing that 4 to 1 capitulation. Pelosi and Reid were furious, but in the end they went along.

Fortunately Republicans were hoping to take the White House and the Senate, so they refused.

And now they are left with 1 to 4 proposal -- $1 in cuts for $4 in tax increases. Also it is they who's got to detail the cuts. Also the have to agree to automatic debt limit increases.

Sweet!

 

[GoneBezerk]

The entitlements are the problem. The Feds thought it was a great idea to create a safety for a few people but over the decades that safety net has become bigger, more lucrative and open to more people on the gravy train.

Scumbag liberals are telling us nothing is wrong with the system, people that work just need to keep paying more taxes to save the system. Meanwhile the Feds create a website telling immigrants how to get into the system for their goodies.

It is insanity of liberals being forced upon us. They don't give a shit because they are stupid and immoral people that only live in the "now," not in reality.

 

[beagle9]

The entitlements are the problem. The Feds thought it was a great idea to create a safety for a few people but over the decades that safety net has become bigger, more lucrative and open to more people on the gravy train.

Scumbag liberals are telling us nothing is wrong with the system, people that work just need to keep paying more taxes to save the system. Meanwhile the Feds create a website telling immigrants how to get into the system for their goodies.

It is insanity of liberals being forced upon us. They don't give a shit because they are stupid and immoral people that only live in the "now," not in reality.

Yep the feds bungled or botched the whole concept of trying to help someone, where as they (the feds) under certain leaderships, have become that which they say they hate in the private sector "TO BIG TO FAIL" (i.e. to big to get it's own house in order), which is the very problem this nation faces right now and in a bad way. It's answer is more more more from us, but we say less less less before we all go under. It's time to get back to charities doing exactly what they were allowed to be created and run for in this nation, and to get the fed out of the give away mode as quickly as possible. Oh well we got 4 more years of the dependency creators reign, so hang on for the ride cuz it's gonna be a doosey.

 

[Koios]

Every time, when the budget put to a vote sucks. Thanks for not passing it, Reid & co!

What "sucked" about them, because the Dims wanted twice as much spending?

Don't lie now.

Nope. They wanted to cut only those programs which benefit the middle class, and thus the economy.