Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[OKTexas]

Republicans have been terrified of advocating real spending cuts and seeing it through since they got comfortable controlling the U.S. House in 1995.

The bottom line is that after two generations out of power in Congress, the Republicans found out they liked being the majority party there.

Cutting the goodies for millions of Americans would not get many of them reelected.

Really, look at the budget that have been passed in the house, they are very specific.

 

[saveliberty]

Republicans have been terrified of advocating real spending cuts and seeing it through since they got comfortable controlling the U.S. House in 1995.

The bottom line is that after two generations out of power in Congress, the Republicans found out they liked being the majority party there.

Cutting the goodies for millions of Americans would not get many of them reelected.

That leaves a doomed nation, congratulations. You must be so proud.

 

[ilia25]

I believe neither party wants to cut spending to any of their own programs.

So you think Republicans don't want to detail how they would like to cut entitlement spending because they own those programs?

Not necessarily.

I just believe that if the Republicans bite the bullet and concede to cut defense spending along with raising taxes for the wealthy first, democrats won't have to compromise anything and we could avoid the fiscal cliff.

What for? It is the entitlements that they are after. They don't care about the debt, the deficits or anything else.

I also think you're right in the sense that them advocating to cut entitlements would open the door for the dems to continue painting them as selfish, greedy, un-caring, ect.. So proposals to cut entitlements would have to come from the Democrats. Plus, that's their bread and butter. Why shouldn't they get to decide how to cut spending to them?

Because there no need for cutting entitlements. Republicans want everyone to believe that America cannot afford to care for its elders and disabled -- but that is a lie. We can perfectly afford that, the question is whether we want to pay.

 

[ilia25]

Republicans have been terrified of advocating real spending cuts and seeing it through since they got comfortable controlling the U.S. House in 1995.

The bottom line is that after two generations out of power in Congress, the Republicans found out they liked being the majority party there.

Cutting the goodies for millions of Americans would not get many of them reelected.

That leaves a doomed nation, congratulations. You must be so proud.

Government spending as % of GDP:

Canada -- 40%
Israel -- 43%
Germany -- 44%
Netherlands -- 46%
UK -- 47%
Denmark -- 52%
Sweden -- 53%
France -- 53%

USA, the doomed nation -- 39%

 

[aaronleland]

So you think Republicans don't want to detail how they would like to cut entitlement spending because they own those programs?

Not necessarily.

I just believe that if the Republicans bite the bullet and concede to cut defense spending along with raising taxes for the wealthy first, democrats won't have to compromise anything and we could avoid the fiscal cliff.

What for? It is the entitlements that they are after. They don't care about the debt, the deficits or anything else.

I also think you're right in the sense that them advocating to cut entitlements would open the door for the dems to continue painting them as selfish, greedy, un-caring, ect.. So proposals to cut entitlements would have to come from the Democrats. Plus, that's their bread and butter. Why shouldn't they get to decide how to cut spending to them?

Because there no need for cutting entitlements. Republicans what everyone to believe that America cannot afford to care for its elders and disabled -- but that is a lie. We can perfectly afford that, the question is whether we want to pay.

Why spend money on our elderly and poor when we can build more toys to blow up brown people overseas?

 

[bripat9643]

I believe neither party wants to cut spending to any of their own programs.

What are the "Republican programs?" They're all Democrat programs.

 

[tooAlive]

I believe neither party wants to cut spending to any of their own programs.

What are the "Republican programs?" They're all Democrat programs.

Low taxes and the defense budget pretty much.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Here is how it works.

GOP....for your tax increase on the wealthy, you will agree to cut 20% from the ledgers of our government. You will send US a proposal of what you wish to cut, and we will counter with what we think should be cut.

We will then begin to negotiate what will be cut, and to what degree.

Otherwise, we will not bargain with you, as you will not bargain in good faith.

ETA: Oh, and I would tell the President that failure to list cuts and amounts will result in a house bill that withholds all funds from the Executive and slashes all government spending by 20%, without regard to any conditions.

 

[Darkwind]

Can you really blame them?

If their cuts are not exclusively defense spending they are branded as everything from rich elitists to racists. The very mention of cutting entitlements is enough to get liberal crowds screaming for their heads on a platter. Hell, they don't even have to actually ask to cut entitlements! They get the same treatment if they simplely suggest we only increase entitlment spending 7% rather than the 10% liberals want.

Immie

As I mentioned in earlier posts Obama has gone to the center which has pushed the GOP further out to the right, way out. If both parties were equally close to the center but with different positions there could be discussion and compromise. As it is the right has nothing to offer. They have a very, very deep problem in their party.

The GOP is far to left now. the liberals are so far left, they are extremists.

We need to move back to the right just to reach some sanity.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Actually, this isn't something to laugh about. This is a problem for both parties, and it is the main reason we can't have an honest discussion on entitlements, specifically SS and Medicare. Cuts are going to have to be made, especially to Medicare. Without them, there is no way Medicare is sustainable. The stupid thing is that the cuts could be reasonable if they were put in place now. We could raise the retirement age, and increase payroll taxes slightly which would be a great start. While many are against raising the retirement age, it would seem to me to be better to make the cuts in benefits on the front end rather than over the entire time benefits are dispersed. Make people wait a little longer and then give them full benefits. Besides reducing costs, it increases revenue into the system as people will have to work a few extra years paying into the programs.

 

[auditor0007]

I believe neither party wants to cut spending to any of their own programs.

So you think Republicans don't want to detail how they would like to cut entitlement spending because they own those programs?

Not necessarily.

I just believe that if the Republicans bite the bullet and concede to cut defense spending along with raising taxes for the wealthy first, democrats won't have to compromise anything and we could avoid the fiscal cliff.

I also think you're right in the sense that them advocating to cut entitlements would open the door for the dems to continue painting them as selfish, greedy, un-caring, ect.. So proposals to cut entitlements would have to come from the Democrats. Plus, that's their bread and butter. Why shouldn't they get to decide how to cut spending to them?

Until voters agree, as a solid majority, that cuts must be made to SS and Medicare, it's not going to happen. The bad thing about it is that the longer we wait, the worse those cuts will need to be.

 

[auditor0007]

Over the cliff...hands up...woohoo!!!!!

Agreed. Lets get rid of Evil-Bush's tax cuts for everybody and enjoy the ride.

I think everyone forgets the reasoning behind the Bush tax cuts. He didn't push for them as a stimulus to get the economy growing. He pushed for them because the CBO was anticipating large surpluses in the upcoming years, and Bush felt that the extra revenue should go back to the taxpayers. Had the CBO been projecting more deficits at the time, I don't believe Bush would have promoted the tax cuts. Even if he had, I don't think he would have gotten them.

 

[Koios]

Over the cliff...hands up...woohoo!!!!!

Agreed. Lets get rid of Evil-Bush's tax cuts for everybody and enjoy the ride.

I think everyone forgets the reasoning behind the Bush tax cuts. He didn't push for them as a stimulus to get the economy growing. He pushed for them because the CBO was anticipating large surpluses in the upcoming years, and Bush felt that the extra revenue should go back to the taxpayers. Had the CBO been projecting more deficits at the time, I don't believe Bush would have promoted the tax cuts. Even if he had, I don't think he would have gotten them.

How does that bit of Bush-apologist thinking fit within the context of Bush Tax Cuts 1 and 2?

Mind elaborating?

 

[Koios]

Agreed. Lets get rid of Evil-Bush's tax cuts for everybody and enjoy the ride.

I think everyone forgets the reasoning behind the Bush tax cuts. He didn't push for them as a stimulus to get the economy growing. He pushed for them because the CBO was anticipating large surpluses in the upcoming years, and Bush felt that the extra revenue should go back to the taxpayers. Had the CBO been projecting more deficits at the time, I don't believe Bush would have promoted the tax cuts. Even if he had, I don't think he would have gotten them.

How does that bit of Bush-apologist thinking fit within the context of Bush Tax Cuts 1 and 2?

Mind elaborating?

And if you don't mind my adding, I think it's worth noting that Bush (who in fact looks to OBM to do the mental heavy-lifting) was solving a problem we didn't have.

You might recall we had debt folks fretted over, and of course, woodies the size of New Jersey at the thought of paying-down. And at long last, nearly 20 years in fact, we were on the verge of doing just that.
That is of course until Bush came along and fucked it up, twice.

 

[007]

Can you really blame them?

Gosh, no! Reps are trying to convince most Americans that they should suffer more so the rich will get richer. That is a tall order.

Always has been -- and it is amazing that they have managed to get this far.

OH YES... BECAUSE SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH/CLASS WARFARE IS SOOOOO MUCH BETTER.

Idiot.

 

[007]

So you think Republicans don't want to detail how they would like to cut entitlement spending because they own those programs?

Not necessarily.

I just believe that if the Republicans bite the bullet and concede to cut defense spending along with raising taxes for the wealthy first, democrats won't have to compromise anything and we could avoid the fiscal cliff.

I also think you're right in the sense that them advocating to cut entitlements would open the door for the dems to continue painting them as selfish, greedy, un-caring, ect.. So proposals to cut entitlements would have to come from the Democrats. Plus, that's their bread and butter. Why shouldn't they get to decide how to cut spending to them?

Until voters agree, as a solid majority, that cuts must be made to SS and Medicare, it's not going to happen. The bad thing about it is that the longer we wait, the worse those cuts will need to be.

Well why even worry about it? It's for all intents and purposes too late already. The money is going to RUN OUT, and then cuts will be IRRELEVANT.

What part about UNSUSTAINABLE do people NOT UNDERSTAND?

 

[ilia25]

This is a problem for both parties, and it is the main reason we can't have an honest discussion on entitlements, specifically SS and Medicare. Cuts are going to have to be made, especially to Medicare. Without them, there is no way Medicare is sustainable.

NO!

WE. DON'T. HAVE. TO. CUT. MEDICARE!

All we have to do to make it sustainable, is to fund it sufficiently.

Canada has medicare covering EVERYONE. Why can't we cover our seniors?

 

[regent]

Well Republicans could try the trickle down thing again.

 

[bripat9643]

This is a problem for both parties, and it is the main reason we can't have an honest discussion on entitlements, specifically SS and Medicare. Cuts are going to have to be made, especially to Medicare. Without them, there is no way Medicare is sustainable.

NO!

WE. DON'T. HAVE. TO. CUT. MEDICARE!

All we have to do to make it sustainable, is to fund it sufficiently.

There isn't enough money on the entire planet to "fund it sufficiently."

Canada has medicare covering EVERYONE. Why can't we cover our seniors?

Canada rations care. Sending granny home to die is how Canada reduces costs.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

^ LOLberal compromise.