Fiscal Cliff non-sense

[PredFan]

The whole thing was a product of that holy "compromise" thingy, that brain dead hand-wringing little putzes like you are always mewling about.

Now you wormy little fuckchops want to turn around and blame it all on republicans?

Grow....the....fuck....up....boy.

You are the one who needs additional maturity, the tea party freshmen came in with an ax to grind and a name to make for themselves, thinking they had a license to destroy entitlements it's what they set out to do under the guise of deficit reduction. So once again I make the charge that this is an artificial issue entirely the product of the 2011 flip of the house to republicans who felt they needed to do everything NOW under the pressure of a crisis they made and are all too willing to make again.

The pull the same nonsense they did..we can look forward to 2012 being a fully Democratic Congress.

Quite possibly. By then the moochers will permanently out number the producers, and the moochers vote democrat.

 

[Sallow]

You are the one who needs additional maturity, the tea party freshmen came in with an ax to grind and a name to make for themselves, thinking they had a license to destroy entitlements it's what they set out to do under the guise of deficit reduction. So once again I make the charge that this is an artificial issue entirely the product of the 2011 flip of the house to republicans who felt they needed to do everything NOW under the pressure of a crisis they made and are all too willing to make again.

The pull the same nonsense they did..we can look forward to 2012 being a fully Democratic Congress.

Quite possibly. By then the moochers will permanently out number the producers, and the moochers vote democrat.

Except in your world "The Moochers" have jobs. And "The Producers" make money from their labor.

I'm cool with "The Producers" getting their asses kicked out of the country.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The only time anyone complains about spending is when they aren't the ones who are deciding how to spend it.

 

[PredFan]

The pull the same nonsense they did..we can look forward to 2012 being a fully Democratic Congress.

Quite possibly. By then the moochers will permanently out number the producers, and the moochers vote democrat.

Except in your world "The Moochers" have jobs. And "The Producers" make money from their labor.

I'm cool with "The Producers" getting their asses kicked out of the country.

No, you're even more confused than usual. That is YOUR world.

 

[occupied]

You are the one who needs additional maturity, the tea party freshmen came in with an ax to grind and a name to make for themselves, thinking they had a license to destroy entitlements it's what they set out to do under the guise of deficit reduction. So once again I make the charge that this is an artificial issue entirely the product of the 2011 flip of the house to republicans who felt they needed to do everything NOW under the pressure of a crisis they made and are all too willing to make again.

The pull the same nonsense they did..we can look forward to 2012 being a fully Democratic Congress.

Quite possibly. By then the moochers will permanently out number the producers, and the moochers vote democrat.

No one is trying say that there is no problem with entitlement spending, there is, but the way republicans went about trying to reform them in 2011 was so incredibly reckless, disingenuous and damaging to their party brand that it probably blew any chance of fixing them on their terms. Entitlement spending will certainly be fixed in the future but in the careful deliberative manner democrats prefer with republicans not able to claim any credit and probably fighting it every step of the way.

 

[saveliberty]

Fiscal cliff?

<yawn>

Do I need to bring a ladder?

 

[PredFan]

The pull the same nonsense they did..we can look forward to 2012 being a fully Democratic Congress.

Quite possibly. By then the moochers will permanently out number the producers, and the moochers vote democrat.

No one is trying say that there is no problem with entitlement spending, there is, but the way republicans went about trying to reform them in 2011 was so incredibly reckless, disingenuous and damaging to their party brand that it probably blew any chance of fixing them on their terms. Entitlement spending will certainly be fixed in the future but in the careful deliberative manner democrats prefer with republicans not able to claim any credit and probably fighting it every step of the way.

Please, save your fake concern for the GOP's future for someone a lot more gullible than I am.

 

[PredFan]

Fiscal cliff?

<yawn>

Do I need to bring a ladder?

No, because it's completely made up.

 

[saveliberty]

Fiscal cliff?

<yawn>

Do I need to bring a ladder?

No, because it's completely made up.

I'll just bring rope then...

 

[PredFan]

Fiscal cliff?

<yawn>

Do I need to bring a ladder?

No, because it's completely made up.

I'll just bring rope then...

Not even that. Just watch your step.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I don't have a problem at all with decreasing defense spending, but it's spitting in the ocean compared to entitlements.

That's sort of true, but only if one looks at Department of Defense. A common misconception of military spending is that it is reflected by the roughly 20% of national spending by DoD. But only about half of defense spending actually gets counted under DoD. This does not include expenses like NASA satellites, International Affairs, defense-related DoE expenses, Veteran's Affairs, Homeland Security, veteran's pensions (I've never understood why that doesn't get counted under DoD), and interest on debt incurred on past wars. This brings the total to a range closer to 40% or so. 40% of national spending is no spit in the ocean. The rest of national spending is mostly what Dems don't want to touch.

The problem will be, just as it is with entitlements, what parts do we cut? g5000 made the most succinct point thus far. Dems don't want to budge on entitlements and Reps don't want to budge on defense. Both items are enormous drains on the taxpayer. That is the biggest problem with gridlock. Each issue represents a massive power base for one party or the other. Dems don't want to lose the votes of their constituents, many of whose hands are out for their entitlements, and Reps don't want to lose their power base, the rather large population of military veterans that 10 years of war has created, which is a significant part of their voter base.

Sensible cuts in what both parties won't budge on are what is called for. I often get heat for being a more moderate Republican than what many of my fellow Reps would like me to be, but reaching across the aisle is what is needed. I would rather it be spearheaded by the GOP, but ultimately I don't care who does it.

You are correct if you look at the current numbers, but with SS and medicare/medicaid, they will be growing exponentially while the military will not. My OP is about the future debt and money owed in the near future. 80+ Trillion is way more than the defence spending.

I'd have to research those projections more, but if that's true, then we have bigger problems than cutting existing spending.

 

[PredFan]

That's sort of true, but only if one looks at Department of Defense. A common misconception of military spending is that it is reflected by the roughly 20% of national spending by DoD. But only about half of defense spending actually gets counted under DoD. This does not include expenses like NASA satellites, International Affairs, defense-related DoE expenses, Veteran's Affairs, Homeland Security, veteran's pensions (I've never understood why that doesn't get counted under DoD), and interest on debt incurred on past wars. This brings the total to a range closer to 40% or so. 40% of national spending is no spit in the ocean. The rest of national spending is mostly what Dems don't want to touch.

The problem will be, just as it is with entitlements, what parts do we cut? g5000 made the most succinct point thus far. Dems don't want to budge on entitlements and Reps don't want to budge on defense. Both items are enormous drains on the taxpayer. That is the biggest problem with gridlock. Each issue represents a massive power base for one party or the other. Dems don't want to lose the votes of their constituents, many of whose hands are out for their entitlements, and Reps don't want to lose their power base, the rather large population of military veterans that 10 years of war has created, which is a significant part of their voter base.

Sensible cuts in what both parties won't budge on are what is called for. I often get heat for being a more moderate Republican than what many of my fellow Reps would like me to be, but reaching across the aisle is what is needed. I would rather it be spearheaded by the GOP, but ultimately I don't care who does it.

You are correct if you look at the current numbers, but with SS and medicare/medicaid, they will be growing exponentially while the military will not. My OP is about the future debt and money owed in the near future. 80+ Trillion is way more than the defence spending.

I'd have to research those projections more, but if that's true, then we have bigger problems than cutting existing spending.

Here's the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html

 

[occupied]

Quite possibly. By then the moochers will permanently out number the producers, and the moochers vote democrat.

No one is trying say that there is no problem with entitlement spending, there is, but the way republicans went about trying to reform them in 2011 was so incredibly reckless, disingenuous and damaging to their party brand that it probably blew any chance of fixing them on their terms. Entitlement spending will certainly be fixed in the future but in the careful deliberative manner democrats prefer with republicans not able to claim any credit and probably fighting it every step of the way.

Please, save your fake concern for the GOP's future for someone a lot more gullible than I am.

I am not concerned with their future but you should be. If that is going to be their way of doing things from now on then you should probably become comfortable with never having control of any branch of government for a while. Republicans in congress realize this even if you do not, let's see if they are going to lash themselves to the mast of their sinking ship or quit being drama queens and help the rest of us bail.

 

[PredFan]

No one is trying say that there is no problem with entitlement spending, there is, but the way republicans went about trying to reform them in 2011 was so incredibly reckless, disingenuous and damaging to their party brand that it probably blew any chance of fixing them on their terms. Entitlement spending will certainly be fixed in the future but in the careful deliberative manner democrats prefer with republicans not able to claim any credit and probably fighting it every step of the way.

Please, save your fake concern for the GOP's future for someone a lot more gullible than I am.

I am not concerned with their future but you should be. If that is going to be their way of doing things from now on then you should probably become comfortable with never having control of any branch of government for a while. Republicans in congress realize this even if you do not, let's see if they are going to lash themselves to the mast of their sinking ship or quit being drama queens and help the rest of us bail.

There's your problem, you think your bailing when you are actually making the hole bigger.

 

[RoadVirus]

The best thing for the republicans to do is not agree to raise the 'debt ceiling'.

If Obama get's his way, he will be able to raise the debt ceiling as high and as often as he wants, without needing permission from Congress.

 

[occupied]

Please, save your fake concern for the GOP's future for someone a lot more gullible than I am.

I am not concerned with their future but you should be. If that is going to be their way of doing things from now on then you should probably become comfortable with never having control of any branch of government for a while. Republicans in congress realize this even if you do not, let's see if they are going to lash themselves to the mast of their sinking ship or quit being drama queens and help the rest of us bail.

There's your problem, you think your bailing when you are actually making the hole bigger.

Drama queens it is, not willing to settle for an incremental solution that may take 10-20 or more years, republicans want to do it in one fell swoop and make damned sure it does not cost them a dime of taxes or loss of services and focuses the pain on those who they see as undeserving, usually the working poor and the young.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The best thing for the republicans to do is not agree to raise the 'debt ceiling'.

Oh please oh please..

Go go go fiscal cliff!

You need to stop blaming the Republicans for almost 70+ years of democratic failure

 

[Sallow]

The best thing for the republicans to do is not agree to raise the 'debt ceiling'.

Oh please oh please..

Go go go fiscal cliff!

You need to stop blaming the Republicans for almost 70+ years of democratic failure

Riiiight.

In any case. I am all for this "Fiscal Cliff". Lock stock and 2 smoking barrels.

It would be the best thing for the country.

 

[Sallow]

The best thing for the republicans to do is not agree to raise the 'debt ceiling'.

If Obama get's his way, he will be able to raise the debt ceiling as high and as often as he wants, without needing permission from Congress.

Where in the constitution is this "Debt Ceiling"?

And what other countries have such a zany fucking rule?

 

[occupied]

The best thing for the republicans to do is not agree to raise the 'debt ceiling'.

If Obama get's his way, he will be able to raise the debt ceiling as high and as often as he wants, without needing permission from Congress.

Where in the constitution is this "Debt Ceiling"?

And what other countries have such a zany fucking rule?

Only one, Denmark, and it is set so high that they can never possibly reach it. As a debt reduction measure it is a failure.