Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for debt vote

[JBeukema]

Look, America's going to end. All empires have and will.

Mole ruit sua.

There's no reason to worry about preserving such a large nation-state with its artificial loyalties. Instead, we should focus on developing sustainable organic social networks and cooperative associations between persons and communities.

Look to the future. To pretend I have any greater tie to someone 3000 miles away than to someone 500 miles away based merely on the fact that we live on the same side of some imaginary line in the sand is absurd. We are getting nearer every day to the time when mankind will progress beyond neo-colonialism, the nation-state, plutocracy, and artificial loyalties. Focus on developing strong, sustainable communities with those around you and encouraging and partaking in the free flow of information and ideals with all people.

 

[editec]

Their effort to do away with Medicare, as we know it, failed .... now this.

Debt ceiling: John Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for vote - latimes.com

By Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey, Washington Bureau
May 9, 2011, 6:57 p.m.
Reporting from Washington— House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans wanted trillions in budget cuts in exchange for their vote to increase the nation's borrowing limit and avoid default, adopting a hard line on the party's position in a speech before major players on Wall Street.

Boehner told the Economic Club of New York that his party wanted specific spending cuts — not future targets that would trigger spending reductions or revenue increases, as President Obama has proposed.

Crappy journalism unworthy of our time

He wanted trillions in cuts, but they don't bother to where the cuts would be?

 

[Avatar4321]

Their effort to do away with Medicare, as we know it, failed .... now this.

Debt ceiling: John Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for vote - latimes.com

By Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey, Washington Bureau
May 9, 2011, 6:57 p.m.
Reporting from Washington— House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans wanted trillions in budget cuts in exchange for their vote to increase the nation's borrowing limit and avoid default, adopting a hard line on the party's position in a speech before major players on Wall Street.

Boehner told the Economic Club of New York that his party wanted specific spending cuts — not future targets that would trigger spending reductions or revenue increases, as President Obama has proposed.

Crappy journalism unworthy of our time

He wanted trillions in cuts, but they don't bother to where the cuts would be?

How about everywhere? Audit the Federal Government. Figure out where it's wasting money, where efforts are overlapping, etc. Cut that and you'd probably be half way there already.

Then do across the board cuts.

 

[The Rabbi]

A reduction in Military and we could have awesome schools, roads, trains, bridges, and be out of debt.

Bullshit.
I suppose we could dismantle the military entirely. Then we wouldn't have to worry about debt because Muslims don't believe in interest payments. We could be a province of the new Caliphate.

As for Boehner, good for him. Politics is a rough game. Every opportunity to cut entitlement programs, roll back Obamacare, and reduce taxes and spending should be taken. If that means Obama has to do it in exchange for anything, so be it.

No reason to dismantle the military entirely. We are spending a very large amount of our military spending on nation building, something that we cannot afford to do, plain and simple.

As for the rest, how far would you like to roll back taxes? Does zero sound good to you? And let's say we put an end to SS and Medicare, since you seem to like this idea so much. Are you suggesting we pay back every dollar put in by those who have not yet started collecting. I'm not sure what that amount might be, but just by estimating, it should be between $20 to $30 trillion. Or do you suggest we just tell everyone to get fucked and figure it out on their own?

Some of the crap you spew is just that, crap. We've lowered taxes to the lowest in 60 years, yet you want to reduce it more. Sorry, but government does have a role in society. Your idea of cutting it to bare bones is not in the best interest of anyone including yourself. You're just so stuck on your ideology that you can't even see it.

What part of the military is spent on nation building? How much exactly? How do you know this? If we ended the wars in afghanistan and iraq today it would fund the gov't for about a month. That's it.

Taxes are not the lowest they've been. The opposite. The gov't today is taking more of GDP than it ever has since WW2.
The average retiree today gets far more out of SS than he ever put in because the system is based on people dying at about age 70. That isn't true anymore.
If anyone is spewing crap it is you. No one is saying we need no taxes and no government. But it is undeniable that government spends way too much on things that are totally unnecessary or duplicative. How are you going to defend funding "the arts" when it benefits a tiny percentage of the population? Or the Dept of Ed when student performance has gone down every year since the dept was created? You can't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

That is almost never true.

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydzfV_vab5c&feature=related]YouTube - Biden: Spend Money to Save Money - Government must spend money to prevent Bankruptcy[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

That is for sure and someday those who govern will realize that they can't just keep spending like there is no tomorrow.

Of course, by then it will be too late.

Although I get the feeling you meant the Republicans and you were not talking about our debt.

Immie

i mean them undermining the full faith and credit of this country is imbecilic.

and while i agree that the debt has to be addressed, one shouldn't cut one's income when one has bills to pay. so you'll forgive me if i'm not all torn up about it.

Indeed, instead, we should tax the hell out of those who have achieved the higher incomes, and drive them offshore so that all we have left are dependents of the Nanny State.

They sure as hell won't go offshore except to some third world country that would nationalize their bank account as soon as possible. In most other industrial nations they would be paying much more taxes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit.
I suppose we could dismantle the military entirely. Then we wouldn't have to worry about debt because Muslims don't believe in interest payments. We could be a province of the new Caliphate.

As for Boehner, good for him. Politics is a rough game. Every opportunity to cut entitlement programs, roll back Obamacare, and reduce taxes and spending should be taken. If that means Obama has to do it in exchange for anything, so be it.

No reason to dismantle the military entirely. We are spending a very large amount of our military spending on nation building, something that we cannot afford to do, plain and simple.

As for the rest, how far would you like to roll back taxes? Does zero sound good to you? And let's say we put an end to SS and Medicare, since you seem to like this idea so much. Are you suggesting we pay back every dollar put in by those who have not yet started collecting. I'm not sure what that amount might be, but just by estimating, it should be between $20 to $30 trillion. Or do you suggest we just tell everyone to get fucked and figure it out on their own?

Some of the crap you spew is just that, crap. We've lowered taxes to the lowest in 60 years, yet you want to reduce it more. Sorry, but government does have a role in society. Your idea of cutting it to bare bones is not in the best interest of anyone including yourself. You're just so stuck on your ideology that you can't even see it.

What part of the military is spent on nation building? How much exactly? How do you know this? If we ended the wars in afghanistan and iraq today it would fund the gov't for about a month. That's it.

Taxes are not the lowest they've been. The opposite. The gov't today is taking more of GDP than it ever has since WW2.
The average retiree today gets far more out of SS than he ever put in because the system is based on people dying at about age 70. That isn't true anymore.
If anyone is spewing crap it is you. No one is saying we need no taxes and no government. But it is undeniable that government spends way too much on things that are totally unnecessary or duplicative. How are you going to defend funding "the arts" when it benefits a tiny percentage of the population? Or the Dept of Ed when student performance has gone down every year since the dept was created? You can't.

You dumb fuck, Iraq alone will have cost us about 3 trillion by the time all the payments to those who have served and paid for that service with extreme injuries are dead.

Any time we have more than 250 servicemen or women in a combat situation, the tax rates should automatically revert to the WW2 tax structure. That would eliminate unneccessary wars, and adaquetly fund the neccessary ones. But you Conservatives would rather the see the nation go into a full depression than pay your share.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, Rabbid, I bet you are like your hero Cheney. Many deferments to avoid real service to our nation, all the while you bitch about paying your share. Most of you Conservatives are like that. Real fucking chicken hawks.

 

[xsited1]

Here's the question I'll be asking the next time I vote:

Did you vote for more debt?

If the answer is "yes," you're not getting my vote.

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

Ask anyone whose started a business; debt is fine if it's for sound investments that'll leave you better off in the long run.

Stop clinging to empty rhetoric and think

Were you drunk when you posted this?

 

[initforme]

"How about we do aware with the concept of retirement altogether. Through thousands of years of history no one ever retired. We lose a significant part of our work force who can contribute so much to the knowledge and experience of the nation because for some reason 80 years ago a politician arbitrarily decided that people should stop working at 65."


I'm retired. I have zero, notta, zippo ounce of wanting to go back to work. Nobody, and I mean nobody should work up until the day they pass. Cant think of a worse place to die than at work. Talk about humiliating. Go ahead, work until you drop for somebody who doesnt appreciate it anyway. Retirement is a special time. Add to that the young people need those jobs. Be a greeter at walmart. How sad.

 

[Toro]

The problem with Medicare and ss is simple: when we put them in place, we expected granny to be dead by now. We didn't plan for this.

This is 100% correct, and it is the reason that we must raise the retirement age. I realize that doing so would not work for everyone and we would have to grant early retirement to certain disabled individuals, but overall, the new retirement age needs to move to at least 70.

How about we do aware with the concept of retirement altogether. Through thousands of years of history no one ever retired. We lose a significant part of our work force who can contribute so much to the knowledge and experience of the nation because for some reason 80 years ago a politician arbitrarily decided that people should stop working at 65.

Continue participating in life. Life isn't over just because we reach a certain age.

People didn't retire because if they stopped working, they died. That's a tough sell to the American public.

I do think the age of eligibility for SS should be increased however.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Anyone who talks about spending cuts without mentioning the military and the banks is a fake.

 

[Seawytch]

House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans wanted trillions in budget cuts in exchange for their vote to increase the nation's borrowing limit and avoid default, adopting a hard line on the party's position in a speech before major players on Wall Street.

Playing chicken with default – these rightists truly have no shame. It’s as if the House is populated by a bunch of spoiled brats, throwing a fit to get their way. Revolting.

But only when a Democrat is in office. How many times was the debt ceiling held hostage when Bush was President? How many times did they vote to raise it?

 

[The Rabbi]

No reason to dismantle the military entirely. We are spending a very large amount of our military spending on nation building, something that we cannot afford to do, plain and simple.

As for the rest, how far would you like to roll back taxes? Does zero sound good to you? And let's say we put an end to SS and Medicare, since you seem to like this idea so much. Are you suggesting we pay back every dollar put in by those who have not yet started collecting. I'm not sure what that amount might be, but just by estimating, it should be between $20 to $30 trillion. Or do you suggest we just tell everyone to get fucked and figure it out on their own?

Some of the crap you spew is just that, crap. We've lowered taxes to the lowest in 60 years, yet you want to reduce it more. Sorry, but government does have a role in society. Your idea of cutting it to bare bones is not in the best interest of anyone including yourself. You're just so stuck on your ideology that you can't even see it.

What part of the military is spent on nation building? How much exactly? How do you know this? If we ended the wars in afghanistan and iraq today it would fund the gov't for about a month. That's it.

Taxes are not the lowest they've been. The opposite. The gov't today is taking more of GDP than it ever has since WW2.
The average retiree today gets far more out of SS than he ever put in because the system is based on people dying at about age 70. That isn't true anymore.
If anyone is spewing crap it is you. No one is saying we need no taxes and no government. But it is undeniable that government spends way too much on things that are totally unnecessary or duplicative. How are you going to defend funding "the arts" when it benefits a tiny percentage of the population? Or the Dept of Ed when student performance has gone down every year since the dept was created? You can't.

You dumb fuck, Iraq alone will have cost us about 3 trillion by the time all the payments to those who have served and paid for that service with extreme injuries are dead.

Any time we have more than 250 servicemen or women in a combat situation, the tax rates should automatically revert to the WW2 tax structure. That would eliminate unneccessary wars, and adaquetly fund the neccessary ones. But you Conservatives would rather the see the nation go into a full depression than pay your share.

That wasn't what I asked, you febrile moron.

 

[Avorysuds]

Because you're going to vote for James Beukema and then pass the Emergency Powers act, granting me authority for 12 months to make any changes to the budget I wish and re-arrange the government as I see fit.

It's faster and easier than passing FeRRA

As long as we get to assassinate you as being an enemy of the state after the 12 months are up, I'd vote for that.

If I refuse to step down when the People ask me to, then I lose legitimacy and my assassination is just.

My first act will be to convene a council of financial advisors (I'd write the Mises institute and ask then to aid me with their best council) to go over every item in the federal budget. Those who wish to keep it must prove why it is necessary that it exist and be handled by the Fed.

Then I would summon our highest generals and foreign ambassadors to negotiate our withdraw from Cold War era bases- they will be handed over to the host nations so they may defend themselves.

Then I will declare that we will no longer honour NAFTA. I will ask ICE to establish a bureau to check the nations/companies/factories where any imported goods come from. If they do not meet environmental and labour standards comparable to our own, they will face steep tariffs. this will disincentive outsourcing.

We will assist the Mexican government n rebuilding their economy and use drone strikes to take out the cartels so a legitimate government can assume control and keep the piece. Such a government and a strong economy in Mexico are necessary to stem the violence and the waves of illegal entrants overwhelming our border patrol.

Subsidies to big Agra, big Ethanol, and big Oil will be ended and States will be encouraged to revamp their welfare programs, enforcing strict standards that require people to document their efforts to become gainfully employed.

The American Society of Civil engineers and the Army Corps of Engineers will be tasked with coming up a plan to get American's infrastructure up to par in five years.

The best economists will be brought forth to argue the merits of the flat, fair, and other tax plans. The goal will to be to come up with a simplified tax system free of the innumerable loop holes we have today. A simple three-tier progressive system (with the lowest tier being except) will be the first option to be debated.

Hollywood's top minds will be brought forth and asked to redirect the Hollywood propaganda machine to foster an environment in which the radioactive spider is replaced with the Ubermensch and self-improvement and the local chruches and citizens councils that lead local efforts to aid the poor are cast as among our greatest civil heroes and role models.
Weekly reports on progress will be shared with the public and people will be encouraged to gather signatures and petition for any other actions they wish to see taken.

You scare the shit out of me with the bolded...

 

[Seawytch]

I'll ask again...

How many times was the debt ceiling raised under Bush and how many times was it held hostage by the likes of the Boehner?

 

[Avorysuds]

Anyone who talks about spending cuts without mentioning the military and the banks is a fake.

Let’s get something strait... The only side of the argument when it comes to "people" that is not allowing cuts are the people why want more SS ,welfare, MC, Government Unions and other entitlement programs.

Once again, the senate is Dem, the president is Dem and the house used to be Dem and yet military was expanded... Liberals can pretend all they want that Republicans are the war party despite their party supported Bush when he went in and expanded it the moment they got back in power.

Both parties are bad but Democrats (voters) don’t want to give up on social spending while supporting the biggest war party since ww2, their party. And how do they justify their actions? Liberals say "well you supported Bush when he did it..." L O L.

 

[Avorysuds]

I'll ask again...

How many times was the debt ceiling raised under Bush and how many times was it held hostage by the likes of the Boehner?

Enough times to help make Bush one of the worst presidents in US history. It's no wonder Obama is doing the same thing as he at this point couldn’t be more like Bush unless he took his foot of the gas when it comes to torture, military, war(s), illegal immigration, secret prisons, fail stimulus, bail-outs, Government getting involved in HC, homeland security, deficit, "tax credits" and so much more...

The question is why did all of these things including the debt ceiling make Bush bad and but make Obama “one of the greatest US presidents?

Oh, I see, because Obama has DADT and finance reform LOLZ.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll ask again...

How many times was the debt ceiling raised under Bush and how many times was it held hostage by the likes of the Boehner?

None. WHy didn't Democrats block it and insist on spending cuts?

What was the debt as a percentage of GDP in those days?

 

[editec]

Look, America's going to end. All empires have and will.

Mole ruit sua.

There's no reason to worry about preserving such a large nation-state with its artificial loyalties. Instead, we should focus on developing sustainable organic social networks and cooperative associations between persons and communities.

Look to the future. To pretend I have any greater tie to someone 3000 miles away than to someone 500 miles away based merely on the fact that we live on the same side of some imaginary line in the sand is absurd. We are getting nearer every day to the time when mankind will progress beyond neo-colonialism, the nation-state, plutocracy, and artificial loyalties. Focus on developing strong, sustainable communities with those around you and encouraging and partaking in the free flow of information and ideals with all people.

Yeah sure I would dearly love to live in that anarchist utopia, too, JB.

But how does get from where we are now to that state (or rather non-state)?

A tragic collapse of empire has never resulted in that kind of strong, sustainable communities by CHOICE ideal that you and I would both like to see mankind evolve into.

I think perhaps European feudal societies were about as close to that ideal as I can think of, and I seriously doubt any of us here would consider that top -down, stagnant society much to our liking.

It's not the OBJECTIVE of libertarianism I have problems with, it's the impossiblity of achieving and sustaining that state of affairs that troubles me.

What's the PLAN?