Can Republicans win on "Cut Taxes for the rich and Subsidize corporations"?

[Oldstyle]

You're going to give me a HuffPo article to prove your point, Wytch? Really?

The 50's and the 90's have very little to do with the current economy that we're in. As I said earlier, it's a Keynesian economic principle to only raise taxes in a strong economy. We had strong economies in the 50's and the 90's. We don't now. So go ahead and raise the top tax rate to 90% if you like but don't expect the same result when the circumstances we're in are TOTALLY different. There is a REASON why Christina Romer (who is about as liberal an economist as there is) cautions against raising taxes on anyone right now. She's a Keynesian and she understands full well that it would be terrible fiscal policy. The call to raise taxes by Obama isn't about fiscal policy...it's about reelection strategy.

It's a Reuters article, not Huffpo. They do that...use Reuters and AP.

Please show me where Christina Romer came out against a tax increase on those making over $1 million.

The Rock and the Hard Place on the Deficit
by Cristina D Romer

The economic evidence doesn’t support the anti-tax view. Both tax increases and spending cuts will tend to slow the recovery in the near term, but spending cuts will likely slow it more. Over the longer term, sensible tax increases will probably do less damage to economic growth and productivity than cuts in government investment.

Tax increases and spending cuts hurt the economy in the short run by reducing demand. Increase taxes, and Americans would have less money to spend. Reduce spending, and less government money would be pumped into the economy.

Professional forecasters estimate that a tax increase equivalent to 1 percent of the nation’s economic output usually reduces gross domestic product by about 1 percent after 18 months. A spending cut of that size, by contrast, reduces G.D.P. by about 1.5 percent — substantially more.[...]

But if federal policy makers do decide to reduce the deficit immediately, reducing spending alone would probably be the most damaging to the recovery. Raising taxes for the wealthy would be least likely to reduce overall demand and raise unemployment.​

Damn, you just burst a delusion. How dare you!

You amuse me, Deanie. Romer comes out and specifically states that raising taxes or drastically cutting spending in a bad economy will further slow the economy. She's then asked which she thinks is worse of the two. She says cutting spending...and you take THAT as Romer being in favor of tax increases? As a Keynesian economist I expect her to say that increased spending is what she wants...and she doesn't disappoint.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I'll go ahead and play your game. I will respond to each and every one of your ridiculously false accusations and lies. My comments are in RED.

1. Can Republicans win on "Cut Taxes for the rich and Subsidize corporations"?
Please provide any evidence that support your false claim that "cutting taxes for the rich" is any part of any Republican's campaign. Just for the record, Obama has made subsidizing corporations, and labor unions, a central part of his economic "recovery" nonsense.

2. They are cutting education in state after state. They helped move jobs to China.
Who are "they"? State legislatures? "Evil" Republicans? "Compassionate" Democrats? ALL areas of state budgets are being trimmed back, due to the fact that the majority of states are TEETERING ON BANKRUPTCY, and the majority of states are required BY LAW to submit BALANCED budgets. ALL public services are being cut back, including law enforcement, fire and rescue, infrastructure upgrades, schools, etc.
As for jobs being moved to China, considering that the United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rates IN THE WORLD, and government intervention has made for a VERY unfavorable business climate in this country, many companies moved their operations overseas so they could SURVIVE. The blame must be shared by BOTH political parties for this situation.

Romney pays 13.9% on over $20,000,000.00 in income and wants to cut that rate in half. Newt wants to cut it to zero.
Maybe Romney paid "only" 13.9% in taxes last year, but his tax rate, based on his income, is 35%. Period. He obviously had plenty of deductions, most of which I'm sure were charitable contributions, and of course many other tax deductible items. The question is........SO WHAT? Are you envious of the money he has EARNED? Are you jealous of his SUCCESS in the business world? Why is it ANY of YOUR business?

They don't want to invest in infrastructure or rebuilding the US.
Once again, WHERE is the money to "invest" going to come from? Borrowing more from the Federal Reserve and China and Japan and others? Just charge everything on the no-limit "Obama Mastercard", right? Also, once again, you should try to legitimize your accusations with some sources and links. And what exactly does "rebuilding the U.S." involve?

They want us to stay in Afghanistan.
Once again, WHERE are your sources for this statement? The MILITARY leaders should decide if we need to be in Afghanistan longer than expected.

They want to end the EPA.
Who is "they"? Name names. Making blanket statements like this makes you look like a leftist partisan hack (but I digress).

I've heard some say that health care threatens their liberty. The number one cause of bankruptcy is Medical Bills. How can Republicans support that?
I love the leftist ploy of using the phrase "I've heard some say". Who is "some"? Is "some" your next door neighbor? Your drunk Uncle? Anarchists like the OWS losers? If you support socialized medicine, that is your perogative. But don't force everybody else to pay for your socialized medicine agenda. You could also just do all of us a favor, and move to Canada.

Let people lose their homes and banks can rent them out.
Any evidence of the "evil Republicans" doing this? Sources? Links? How do you "let" people lose their homes? Are you asking TAXPAYERS to subsidize the mortgage payments of people who can't afford the homes they live in (which is what Obama is already doing)?

They want more deregulation for Wall Street.
Really? Prove it. You're ignorant and you're a liar.

These things have proven disaster for the economy. So Republicans will run on "what"? What's left?
"The economy" is what has caused "these things" to happen. "The economy" we have today is the result of politicians, from BOTH political parties, screwing this country up with excessive regulations, excessive taxation, excessive spending, and a myriad of other things that were detrimental to this country.
Why don't you grow up, stop pointing fingers, and try to become part of the SOLUTION instead of part of the PROBLEM?

 

[alan1]

Can Republicans win on "Cut Taxes for the rich and Subsidize corporations"?

What else do they have?

They are cutting education in state after state. They helped move jobs to China.

Romney pays 13.9% on over $20,000,000.00 in income and wants to cut that rate in half. Newt wants to cut it to zero.

They don't want to invest in infrastructure or rebuilding the US.

They want us to stay in Afghanistan.

They want to end the EPA.

I've heard some say that health care threatens their liberty. The number one cause of bankruptcy is Medical Bills. How can Republicans support that?

Let people lose their homes and banks can rent them out.

They want more deregulation for Wall Street.

These things have proven disaster for the economy. So Republicans will run on "what"? What's left?

Pretty much everything you said is naught but a false characterization of how ignorant liberals claim conservatives act and believe, not how conservtives actually do act and believe.
Congratulations on yet another flame baiting thread based upon mischaracterization.

Mischaracterization? Where? Be specific.

Republicans say this stuff, then when Democrats repeat it, Republicans say, "That's not what we said". Then Democrats ask, "OK, what was it you said?" Then Republicans call names.
We've been down this road before. Infrastructure, Afghanistan, taxes, EPA. It's all there. What is it they didn't say? Do you want links? Again?

first, this,

Fuck you pisshead. Which one is a FANTASY damn it? I'm tired of you agreeing with people that have this agenda and when it's spelled out, you deny that's the agenda. WELL PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH!

I'll go ahead and address your first statement which was this, "Can Republicans win on "Cut Taxes for the rich and Subsidize corporations"?"
When I hear republicans talk about cutting taxes, they are talking about cutting taxes PERIOD. What you did is slip in the "for the rich" clause, which is a mischaracterization. You see, tax cuts are cuts for everybody that pays taxes, see the Bush tax cuts for a perfect example.
Now then, czan you provide proof that republicans (as a group) only want tax cuts for the rich? Can you please provide examples of legislation that subsidizes corporations that was passed without any supporting votes from democrats?

 

[alan1]

I haven't a clue to how the election will turn out.

I do have a clue to what most Americans want:

Predictability on taxes and income.
Lower taxes OR paying down of debt.
No new spending.
Homeland security in more than a cabinet position.
Cut waste in government, people have already done at home.

Americans want increased taxes on the rich...and I can provide polls to support my statement.

Do you support tyranny by the majority?

 

[rdean]

It's a Reuters article, not Huffpo. They do that...use Reuters and AP.

Please show me where Christina Romer came out against a tax increase on those making over $1 million.

The Rock and the Hard Place on the Deficit
by Cristina D Romer

The economic evidence doesn’t support the anti-tax view. Both tax increases and spending cuts will tend to slow the recovery in the near term, but spending cuts will likely slow it more. Over the longer term, sensible tax increases will probably do less damage to economic growth and productivity than cuts in government investment.

Tax increases and spending cuts hurt the economy in the short run by reducing demand. Increase taxes, and Americans would have less money to spend. Reduce spending, and less government money would be pumped into the economy.

Professional forecasters estimate that a tax increase equivalent to 1 percent of the nation’s economic output usually reduces gross domestic product by about 1 percent after 18 months. A spending cut of that size, by contrast, reduces G.D.P. by about 1.5 percent — substantially more.[...]

But if federal policy makers do decide to reduce the deficit immediately, reducing spending alone would probably be the most damaging to the recovery. Raising taxes for the wealthy would be least likely to reduce overall demand and raise unemployment.​

Damn, you just burst a delusion. How dare you!

You amuse me, Deanie. Romer comes out and specifically states that raising taxes or drastically cutting spending in a bad economy will further slow the economy. She's then asked which she thinks is worse of the two. She says cutting spending...and you take THAT as Romer being in favor of tax increases? As a Keynesian economist I expect her to say that increased spending is what she wants...and she doesn't disappoint.

What part of Raising taxes for the wealthy would be least likely to reduce overall demand and raise unemployment don't you get?


Does it have to be screamed into your ear for you to hear it?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can Obama win on... four more years of....

$1,500,000,000,000 deficits
$15,000,000,000,000 debt
33,000,000 unemployed
1/6 of the nation on public assistance
Obamacare
Fast and Furious
The Arab Spring that never sprang
Solyndra, Solar Power, Evergreen, etc.
GM
Wall Street bailouts

??

 

[rdean]

I'll go ahead and play your game. I will respond to each and every one of your ridiculously false accusations and lies. My comments are in RED.

1. Can Republicans win on "Cut Taxes for the rich and Subsidize corporations"?
Please provide any evidence that support your false claim that "cutting taxes for the rich" is any part of any Republican's campaign. Just for the record, Obama has made subsidizing corporations, and labor unions, a central part of his economic "recovery" nonsense.

2. They are cutting education in state after state. They helped move jobs to China.
Who are "they"? State legislatures? "Evil" Republicans? "Compassionate" Democrats? ALL areas of state budgets are being trimmed back, due to the fact that the majority of states are TEETERING ON BANKRUPTCY, and the majority of states are required BY LAW to submit BALANCED budgets. ALL public services are being cut back, including law enforcement, fire and rescue, infrastructure upgrades, schools, etc.
As for jobs being moved to China, considering that the United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rates IN THE WORLD, and government intervention has made for a VERY unfavorable business climate in this country, many companies moved their operations overseas so they could SURVIVE. The blame must be shared by BOTH political parties for this situation.

Romney pays 13.9% on over $20,000,000.00 in income and wants to cut that rate in half. Newt wants to cut it to zero.
Maybe Romney paid "only" 13.9% in taxes last year, but his tax rate, based on his income, is 35%. Period. He obviously had plenty of deductions, most of which I'm sure were charitable contributions, and of course many other tax deductible items. The question is........SO WHAT? Are you envious of the money he has EARNED? Are you jealous of his SUCCESS in the business world? Why is it ANY of YOUR business?

They don't want to invest in infrastructure or rebuilding the US.
Once again, WHERE is the money to "invest" going to come from? Borrowing more from the Federal Reserve and China and Japan and others? Just charge everything on the no-limit "Obama Mastercard", right? Also, once again, you should try to legitimize your accusations with some sources and links. And what exactly does "rebuilding the U.S." involve?

They want us to stay in Afghanistan.
Once again, WHERE are your sources for this statement? The MILITARY leaders should decide if we need to be in Afghanistan longer than expected.

They want to end the EPA.
Who is "they"? Name names. Making blanket statements like this makes you look like a leftist partisan hack (but I digress).

I've heard some say that health care threatens their liberty. The number one cause of bankruptcy is Medical Bills. How can Republicans support that?
I love the leftist ploy of using the phrase "I've heard some say". Who is "some"? Is "some" your next door neighbor? Your drunk Uncle? Anarchists like the OWS losers? If you support socialized medicine, that is your perogative. But don't force everybody else to pay for your socialized medicine agenda. You could also just do all of us a favor, and move to Canada.

Let people lose their homes and banks can rent them out.
Any evidence of the "evil Republicans" doing this? Sources? Links? How do you "let" people lose their homes? Are you asking TAXPAYERS to subsidize the mortgage payments of people who can't afford the homes they live in (which is what Obama is already doing)?

They want more deregulation for Wall Street.
Really? Prove it. You're ignorant and you're a liar.

These things have proven disaster for the economy. So Republicans will run on "what"? What's left?
"The economy" is what has caused "these things" to happen. "The economy" we have today is the result of politicians, from BOTH political parties, screwing this country up with excessive regulations, excessive taxation, excessive spending, and a myriad of other things that were detrimental to this country.
Why don't you grow up, stop pointing fingers, and try to become part of the SOLUTION instead of part of the PROBLEM?

I swear you are such a fucking tool. Seriously.

1. Please provide any evidence that support your false claim that "cutting taxes for the rich" is any part of any Republican's campaign. Just for the record, Obama has made subsidizing corporations, and labor unions, a central part of his economic "recovery" nonsense.

This leaves me speechless. "Cutting taxes for the rich" is part of any Republican's campaign? Seriously? It's part of EVERY Republicans campaign. Haven't you been watching their debates? And Obama subsidizes unions? That's crazy. It doesn't even make sense. And "recovery" is nonsense? Really?

2. Corporations moved to China so the could survive? You can't possibly believe that.

ALL public services are being cut back, including law enforcement, fire and rescue, infrastructure upgrades, schools, etc.

Then why are the same states making these cuts also cutting taxes for the wealthy. Don't you do any research? Check anything out?

Are you envious of the money he has EARNED? Are you jealous of his SUCCESS in the business world? Why is it ANY of YOUR business?

Earned? He hasn't worked in years. He moves his money overseas to avoid paying taxes. Because he doesn't care about investing in this country.


They want us to stay in Afghanistan.
Once again, WHERE are your sources for this statement? The MILITARY leaders should decide if we need to be in Afghanistan longer than expected.

Because they told us during the debates. What the fuck is wrong with you? And the military leaders don't decide foreign policy. The commander in chief does that. Do you even understand how government works?


They want to end the EPA.
Who is "they"? Name names. Making blanket statements like this makes you look like a leftist partisan hack (but I digress).

I don't know? Ron Paul? Michelle Bachmann? All of the candidates say the want to roll back the powers of the EPA or end it all together. It's been in every debate.

Let people lose their homes and banks can rent them out.
Any evidence of the "evil Republicans" doing this? Sources? Links? How do you "let" people lose their homes? Are you asking TAXPAYERS to subsidize the mortgage payments of people who can't afford the homes they live in (which is what Obama is already doing)?

This has been one of the central points of Mitt Romney's plan. Are you crazy? This is insane!

They want more deregulation for Wall Street.
Really? Prove it. You're ignorant and you're a liar.

I don't know what else to say. When those Republican candidates talk about "deregulation", what do you think they are talking about?

These things have proven disaster for the economy. So Republicans will run on "what"? What's left?
"The economy" is what has caused "these things" to happen. "The economy" we have today is the result of politicians, from BOTH political parties, screwing this country up with excessive regulations, excessive taxation, excessive spending, and a myriad of other things that were detrimental to this country.
Why don't you grow up, stop pointing fingers, and try to become part of the SOLUTION instead of part of the PROBLEM?

The economy didn't cause these things to happen. Republican policy did.

How is it possible to debate someone like this? All those Republican Debates and here is someone who hasn't listened to a thing they've said???????? Seriously??????

What is it you think they were saying?

I'm shocked. I really am.

 

[rdean]

can obama win on... Four more years of....

$1,500,000,000,000 deficits thank the gop
$15,000,000,000,000 debt thank the gop
33,000,000 unemployed thank the gop
1/6 of the nation on public assistance thank the gop
obamacare thank mitt romney
fast and furious ????
The arab spring that never sprang starting with iraq
solyndra, solar power, evergreen, etc. Even mitt says some companies fail
gm number one carmaker in the world thanks to obama - gop wanted it to die
wall street bailouts thanks george bush

??

anything else?

YOU GOTTA GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

 

[rdean]

Do these right wingers really believe this shit they say? After all, 2001 wasn't that long ago. How can they rewrite history and turn what actually happened ONLY RECENTLY into the bizarre?

 

[Listening]

GM should have been allowed to die.

By bailing it out, Obama essenatially violated the idea that everyone is equal under the law.

Keep it up RDean....you guys will lose the senate and you might just blow the whole gift we gave you in 2008 in just four years.

 

[DaGoose]

GM should have been allowed to die.

By bailing it out, Obama essenatially violated the idea that everyone is equal under the law.

Keep it up RDean....you guys will lose the senate and you might just blow the whole gift we gave you in 2008 in just four years.

Good idea. Allow tens of thousands of ordinary Americans lose their jobs while still giving the rich their tax breaks. I think the GOP should run with that.

Sounds like a strategy policy to me!!

I'm sure that's the type of policy that Americans want.

Obama's Auto Bailout Success Story Will Prove Crucial in Election Fight vs. Romney

Obama's Auto Bailout Success Story Will Prove Crucial in Election Fight vs. Romney - Autos & Trends

 

[bitterlyclingin]

The Pubbies don't believe in subsidizing corporations. In March of 2008 the treasury did a back handed bailout of Bear Stearns, allowing the principals and shareholders to barely escape with their skins on. Too many of the party's Conservative wing complained that bailout amounted to a moral hazard so the next time a brokerage house came to the administration choking, wheezing, and gasping from a diet consisting of too many CDOs and CDS backed by sub prime mortgages, Lehman Brothers, they simply let it go. The only fly in the ointment with Lehman, was that lehman was a clearing house for an enormous number of financial transactions which were immediately frozen when Lehman was forced to declare bankruptcy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

They still have outlawing abortion, outlawing birth control, and suppressing the black vote.

Yeah, and don't forget, raising taxes on the very poor and on the working class.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Those parties who worship in the Church of Affirmative Action are much more likely to end up subsidizing corporations or their unions.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

can obama win on... Four more years of....

$1,500,000,000,000 deficits thank the gop
$15,000,000,000,000 debt thank the gop
33,000,000 unemployed thank the gop
1/6 of the nation on public assistance thank the gop
obamacare thank mitt romney
fast and furious ????
The arab spring that never sprang starting with iraq
solyndra, solar power, evergreen, etc. Even mitt says some companies fail
gm number one carmaker in the world thanks to obama - gop wanted it to die
wall street bailouts thanks george bush

??

anything else?

YOU GOTTA GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

Well, if we're gonna give credit where its due, then how many months of steady job growth? How many months of the economy growing? Its one of the car makers of the UNITED STATES that's back on top - thanks to President Obama.

Remember, the pubs wanted to see GM down the crapper, more people unemployed, more homeless, but President Obama wants to see us back on top.

Sure, its true that the GObP/Repubs have sabotaged the working class as much as they can because they are making good on their promise to see our country on its knees so they blame the president.

But President Obama has made huge progress in spite of all the filibusters and obstructionism.

I'd like to see the R congress brought up on charges. Yes, I'm serious.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Find a Republican who would suppress Allen West's or Herman Cain's voice or vote.
Birth control is a very large and lucrative industry. If sperm and ovum never combine, most Republicans have no problem there, whether the method be a tiny pink, white, or yellow pill stuck on a piece of cardboard, latex tube, or the cowboy's old sock method.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Ford's not putting up a Super Bowl commercial today at what, 30 mill for half a minute? GM is.
Where do you suppose that money is coming from? Not from selling all those 600 Volts during the month of January, that's for sure. If you want to give the cars away, by ignoring making a profit on the cars you're selling and not paying the shareholders a dividend, you can put on a good showing, but you're not behaving like a rational business making rational business decisions, you're behaving like a Government owned business, which is exactly what GM and Chrysler still are. There were acres and acres of Chevrolet vehicle special sales being offered during Columbus' major October Equestrian event, The Congress, but very, very few Fords. The taxpayer was subsidizing those Chevrolet sales, you could bet your W2 on it.
Meanwhile, the main streets of little jerkwater New England towns were reminiscent of the dustbowl towns the Okies fled during the Great Depression. Just President For Life wannabe Obama stealing from Peter to pay Paul there. "Happy Days Are Here Again!"

 

[Stephanie]

GM should have been allowed to die.

By bailing it out, Obama essenatially violated the idea that everyone is equal under the law.

Keep it up RDean....you guys will lose the senate and you might just blow the whole gift we gave you in 2008 in just four years.

Good idea. Allow tens of thousands of ordinary Americans lose their jobs while still giving the rich their tax breaks. I think the GOP should run with that.

Sounds like a strategy policy to me!!

I'm sure that's the type of policy that Americans want.

Obama's Auto Bailout Success Story Will Prove Crucial in Election Fight vs. Romney

Obama's Auto Bailout Success Story Will Prove Crucial in Election Fight vs. Romney - Autos & Trends

Funny, where's all your whining for all the Solyndra employees and other green companies that got Government handouts from your dear leader and then they went BANKRUP and SCREWED us taxpayers in the deal.

 

[Oldstyle]

can obama win on... Four more years of....

$1,500,000,000,000 deficits thank the gop
$15,000,000,000,000 debt thank the gop
33,000,000 unemployed thank the gop
1/6 of the nation on public assistance thank the gop
obamacare thank mitt romney
fast and furious ????
The arab spring that never sprang starting with iraq
solyndra, solar power, evergreen, etc. Even mitt says some companies fail
gm number one carmaker in the world thanks to obama - gop wanted it to die
wall street bailouts thanks george bush

??

anything else?

YOU GOTTA GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

Well, if we're gonna give credit where its due, then how many months of steady job growth? How many months of the economy growing? Its one of the car makers of the UNITED STATES that's back on top - thanks to President Obama.

Remember, the pubs wanted to see GM down the crapper, more people unemployed, more homeless, but President Obama wants to see us back on top.

Sure, its true that the GObP/Repubs have sabotaged the working class as much as they can because they are making good on their promise to see our country on its knees so they blame the president.

But President Obama has made huge progress in spite of all the filibusters and obstructionism.

I'd like to see the R congress brought up on charges. Yes, I'm serious.

Don't you mean...how many months of "tepid" job growth? How many months of "tepid" economic growth? I guess you're also willing to overlook the cost of that "tepid" growth to the taxpayer both in deficits and inflation? Growth that would have been even MORE tepid if Barry had gotten his way and Congress hadn't resisted his calls for both Cap & Trade and Card Check legislation? Or is it "inconvenient" to point out the truth, which is we had little to no growth until Democrats lost their super majorities and could no longer pass lousy pieces of legislation like ObamaCare? Bring the Republican House up on charges? Too funny. For doing what? Reining in an Administration that was hell bent on passing a progressive agenda that would have killed job creation and stifled an already weak economy?

 

[Seawytch]

It's a Reuters article, not Huffpo. They do that...use Reuters and AP.

Please show me where Christina Romer came out against a tax increase on those making over $1 million.

The Rock and the Hard Place on the Deficit
by Cristina D Romer

The economic evidence doesn’t support the anti-tax view. Both tax increases and spending cuts will tend to slow the recovery in the near term, but spending cuts will likely slow it more. Over the longer term, sensible tax increases will probably do less damage to economic growth and productivity than cuts in government investment.

Tax increases and spending cuts hurt the economy in the short run by reducing demand. Increase taxes, and Americans would have less money to spend. Reduce spending, and less government money would be pumped into the economy.

Professional forecasters estimate that a tax increase equivalent to 1 percent of the nation’s economic output usually reduces gross domestic product by about 1 percent after 18 months. A spending cut of that size, by contrast, reduces G.D.P. by about 1.5 percent — substantially more.[...]

But if federal policy makers do decide to reduce the deficit immediately, reducing spending alone would probably be the most damaging to the recovery. Raising taxes for the wealthy would be least likely to reduce overall demand and raise unemployment.​

Damn, you just burst a delusion. How dare you!

You amuse me, Deanie. Romer comes out and specifically states that raising taxes or drastically cutting spending in a bad economy will further slow the economy. She's then asked which she thinks is worse of the two. She says cutting spending...and you take THAT as Romer being in favor of tax increases? As a Keynesian economist I expect her to say that increased spending is what she wants...and she doesn't disappoint.

So you agree with her that we shouldn't cut spending either or do you just want to cherry pick what she says?