GOP budget plan would raise debt, hurt seniors

[G.T.]

What "cutting?"
They haven't cut crap yet.

Was this post even necessary, really? ^

Yes. You keep on making claims like others without any facts.

Your post was retarded. It assumed nobody knew the fucking thing didn't pass yet. Jesus christ.

 

[editec]

Thank GOD I (and the rest of the Vets here) have a SOCIALIZED MEDICINE plan to count on.

Given that I will not be hurt by it then by all means DO MAKE EVERYBODY ELSE'S HC subject to the tender mercies of the invisible garotte of the market.

 

[G.T.]

It flattens the tax rates and eliminates a lot of the credits and deductions, AKA corporate welfare.

And even though it doesn't eliminate them altogether, it's a damned good start.

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

What....Did you expect that all the overspending was all going to go away overnight?

Deeply as I myself would cut spending, I'm not so naïve believe that DC politics aren't in play here.

Even so, it's a start -you do have to start somewhere- and a dam sight better than anything anyone with that (D) by their name is proposing.

It is? How-so?

Compare the CBO scores. They're 2 percent different in-terms of their effect on the Debt, according to CBO, and guess whose does less damage?

 

[StevenC]

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

Where do you get this crap? How would it increase debt?

CBO's score shows it increasing the Debt.

CBO didn't reveiw the actuall legislation so how can you make this claim?

 

[Vanquish]

Ahhhh the tea-bagging reality comes home.

 

[WillowTree]

This from the link Ravi posted.



CBO: GOP Budget Would Increase Debt, Then Stick It To Medicare Patients






Does the CBO actually relase statements like this? And, if they do, they lost credibility. They are Fearmongering Idiots.

 

[xsited1]

Where do you get this crap? How would it increase debt?

CBO's score shows it increasing the Debt.

CBO didn't reveiw the actuall legislation so how can you make this claim?

True. There are too many people jumping to conclusions to support their own political agendas.

 

[Ravi]

It flattens the tax rates and eliminates a lot of the credits and deductions, AKA corporate welfare.

And even though it doesn't eliminate them altogether, it's a damned good start.

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

What....Did you expect that all the overspending was all going to go away overnight?

Deeply as I myself would cut spending, I'm not so naïve believe that DC politics aren't in play here.

Even so, it's a start -you do have to start somewhere- and a dam sight better than anything anyone with that (D) by their name is proposing.

Increasing the debt is a good start on decreasing the debt. I'm still waiting to see evidence that you are anything more than a partisan hack.

 

[StevenC]

Was this post even necessary, really? ^

Yes. You keep on making claims like others without any facts.

Your post was retarded. It assumed nobody knew the fucking thing didn't pass yet. Jesus christ.

You are the one saying it will raise the debt.
How can you say that when it hasn't actually been analyzed?

 

[G.T.]

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

What....Did you expect that all the overspending was all going to go away overnight?

Deeply as I myself would cut spending, I'm not so naïve believe that DC politics aren't in play here.

Even so, it's a start -you do have to start somewhere- and a dam sight better than anything anyone with that (D) by their name is proposing.

Increasing the debt is a good start on decreasing the debt. I'm still waiting to see evidence that you are anything more than a partisan hack.

I scratched my head on that one also.

 

[Oddball]

Where do you get this crap? How would it increase debt?

CBO's score shows it increasing the Debt.

CBO didn't reveiw the actuall legislation so how can you make this claim?

Even money it's all part of the DNC e-mail blast boilerplate.

It's only a matter of time until we hear "republicans want seniors to eat dog food".

 

[G.T.]

Yes. You keep on making claims like others without any facts.

Your post was retarded. It assumed nobody knew the fucking thing didn't pass yet. Jesus christ.

You are the one saying it will raise the debt.
How can you say that when it hasn't actually been analyzed?

I didn't say that. I said potentially. You know, key phrases actually change meanings, right?

 

[StevenC]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

Where is "potentially" here?

 

[Oddball]

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

What....Did you expect that all the overspending was all going to go away overnight?

Deeply as I myself would cut spending, I'm not so naïve believe that DC politics aren't in play here.

Even so, it's a start -you do have to start somewhere- and a dam sight better than anything anyone with that (D) by their name is proposing.

Increasing the debt is a good start on decreasing the debt. I'm still waiting to see evidence that you are anything more than a partisan hack.

If they cut into spending as far as I would, let alone cuts that brought the budget into balance, the heads of nutbars like you would .

Are the cuts enough for me?...Of course not.
Is it moving in the right direction?...Without question.
Is anyone on the left proposing anything more than "we'll tax our way out of this"?...Nope.

 

[Bern80]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

That's because what they are cutting isn't offset by the tax cuts they plan to give the top 1%. In other words, screw the seniors and the poor and give the wealthy a tax cut. Same song as always.

Any tax cut at this point is insignificant next to the debt. Tackling the debt is going to take a radical change in perspective of the role of government in society and what it needs to spend money on. A couple percentage points in tax cuts or hikes to this group or that is irrelevant at this point.

 

[G.T.]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

Where is "potentially" here?

Do you know what if means?

 

[Ravi]

Yep, in your mind increasing the debt is a step in the right direction.

btw, just a couple of days ago the Republicans voted to continue subsidizing the oil companies.

So basically their plan is: we will shut down the government if you don't agree to raise the debt, break the public trust, screw the poor, and not keep subsidizing big oil.

 

[Oddball]

Yep, in your mind increasing the debt is a step in the right direction.

btw, just a couple of days ago the Republicans voted to continue subsidizing the oil companies.

So basically their plan is: we will shut down the government if you don't agree to raise the debt, break the public trust, screw the poor, and not keep subsidizing big oil.

Excellent regurgitation of the DNC e-mail blast talking points!...You didn't have to copy-n-paste that, did you?


BTW...Since when did you become a debt hawk, anyways?

 

[xsited1]

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

That's because what they are cutting isn't offset by the tax cuts they plan to give the top 1%. In other words, screw the seniors and the poor and give the wealthy a tax cut. Same song as always.

Any tax cut at this point is insignificant next to the debt. Tackling the debt is going to take a radical change in perspective of the role of government in society and what it needs to spend money on. A couple percentage points in tax cuts or hikes to this group or that is irrelevant at this point.

That's true. And right now Congress is grappling with a few billions in tax cuts to avoid a government shutdown. So the question is, if they can't even agree on a few billion dollars in cuts to keep the government running, how are they going to be able to tackle the trillion dollar spending deficits? It's all so depressing.

 

[Bern80]

That's because what they are cutting isn't offset by the tax cuts they plan to give the top 1%. In other words, screw the seniors and the poor and give the wealthy a tax cut. Same song as always.

Any tax cut at this point is insignificant next to the debt. Tackling the debt is going to take a radical change in perspective of the role of government in society and what it needs to spend money on. A couple percentage points in tax cuts or hikes to this group or that is irrelevant at this point.

That's true. And right now Congress is grappling with a few billions in tax cuts to avoid a government shutdown. So the question is, if they can't even agree on a few billion dollars in cuts to keep the government running, how are they going to be able to tackle the trillion dollar spending deficits? It's all so depressing.

It is. This is gonna take more than a few billion here or there. This is going to take a paradigm shift. And the people in Washington and probably not even most of America is there yet. Think of how long we've had the entitlements we've had in this country. It's so ingrained in people that they are entitled to things that most are prefectly capable of providing for themselves that that mentality is going to take some work to undo. It's probably not a message a politician interested in re-election can afford to spread.

The right has it's issues as well. The military can not be a sacred cow and I personally think it could be slashed big time, maybe in half, and keep our country just as safe. Things like crony capitalism have to end. We need a much simpler tax code that treats everyone the same, from the poor to the rich, from individual to megacorp.