Just wondering why is it that the only solution to the budget debate for the left is

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, a lot of the Cuts the Republicans want to make are political, and that's especially wrong to do when the CBO predicts a net LOSS as a result of their Budget.

Net loss? Impossible in fund accounting.

Not in the accounting sense, in the sense that their "cuts" yield a budget that ADDS to the Debt, not DECREASES it.

Fair enough.. but do you realize how ridiculous is the claim that cutting spending leads to deficits? If true, something is seriously fucked up.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Can I ask why a few posters on this thread are singling out democrats?

Is it because you think republicans would lower the debt, lower the budget, lower spending etc? I hope not, because if you lived in america between 2001-2007 you'd have a large sample size to prove the opposite is true.

Neither party gives a damn about any of those things.

 

[G.T.]

Net loss? Impossible in fund accounting.

Not in the accounting sense, in the sense that their "cuts" yield a budget that ADDS to the Debt, not DECREASES it.

Fair enough.. but do you realize how ridiculous is the claim that cutting spending leads to deficits? If true, something is seriously fucked up.

They cut spending in some areas, and gave more subsidies in others.

 

[G.T.]

Can I ask why a few posters on this thread are singling out democrats?

Is it because you think republicans would lower the debt, lower the budget, lower spending etc? I hope not, because if you lived in america between 2001-2007 you'd have a large sample size to prove the opposite is true.

Neither party gives a damn about any of those things.

I think it won't get serious until something "pops," unfortunately for all of us.

We should hope to God Trump never touches office, he talk a big game of agitating China, you know, our debt holder. Yoikes.

 

[signelect]

I agree with the Doc on this one but remember that the Bush deficit in 2007 was only slight higher than last months deficit under the POTUS.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can I ask why a few posters on this thread are singling out democrats?

Is it because you think republicans would lower the debt, lower the budget, lower spending etc? I hope not, because if you lived in america between 2001-2007 you'd have a large sample size to prove the opposite is true.

Neither party gives a damn about any of those things.

Partly true.. indeed.

This is why I am a Conservative... not a Republican.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I agree with the Doc on this one but remember that the Bush deficit in 2007 was only slight higher than last months deficit under the POTUS.

I remember hearing Bush was going to bring a more fiscally conservative and smaller government than we had under Clinton. Bush made Clinton look like the biggest conservative in US history.

Has nothing to do with party, the next guy is always going to be more fiscally liberal than the one before him. Each one sets the bar higher (or lower, depending on how you look at it).

I want all the republicans on this board to remember how angry they are about all the debt, spending and government growth under Obama. That way when the next republican president (my guess 2016) is even MORE fiscally liberal and runs and even BIGGER government than him you stay outraged and take it out even more on the guy who told you he was going to undo the Obama methodology.

 

[Robert]

Can I ask why a few posters on this thread are singling out democrats?

Is it because you think republicans would lower the debt, lower the budget, lower spending etc? I hope not, because if you lived in america between 2001-2007 you'd have a large sample size to prove the opposite is true.

Neither party gives a damn about any of those things.

Who is advocating for Cut's as well as a restructuring of our Debt?
Who is advocating for increasing spending and raising taxes.

While in general I agree with the premise that neither party want's to make the changes I do see at least one outside influence pushing one side to do the right thing...how that fairs remains to be seen.

 

[Robert]

I agree with the Doc on this one but remember that the Bush deficit in 2007 was only slight higher than last months deficit under the POTUS.

I remember hearing Bush was going to bring a more fiscally conservative and smaller government than we had under Clinton. Bush made Clinton look like the biggest conservative in US history.

Has nothing to do with party, the next guy is always going to be more fiscally liberal than the one before him. Each one sets the bar higher (or lower, depending on how you look at it).

I want all the republicans on this board to remember how angry they are about all the debt, spending and government growth under Obama. That way when the next republican president (my guess 2016) is even MORE fiscally liberal and runs and even BIGGER government than him you stay outraged and take it out even more on the guy who told you he was going to undo the Obama methodology.

The budget has very little to do with the POTUS its does have everything to do with the Congress who controls the purse strings. The POTUS lays out a Path it is the Congress who funds it.

 

[Avorysuds]

"with absolutely no talk of cutting spending at the same time"

is a lie.

I think what they mean is there were no meaningful cuts in the spending budget. The cuts offered are so menial they simply don’t matter. In fact there would almost be no difference if the cuts were never done. What needs to be cut, like 2 trillion and they got to 38 billion and managed to drop and “holy shit crap bomb” about how hard, painful, unfair and destructive it was to our society?

Fact is I could be the best Progressive liberal Demcocrat or even Neocon Conservative… All I have to do is promise a 1 billion dollar check in everyone’s mail box if I’m elected President, oddly that’s not any different than what is being done currently, just a bigger more *lol wtf* number is all. Yet both numbers are unsustainbale as time is once again (when compared to the history of the world) showing us.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Can I ask why a few posters on this thread are singling out democrats?

Is it because you think republicans would lower the debt, lower the budget, lower spending etc? I hope not, because if you lived in america between 2001-2007 you'd have a large sample size to prove the opposite is true.

Neither party gives a damn about any of those things.

Who is advocating for Cut's as well as a restructuring of our Debt?
Who is advocating for increasing spending and raising taxes.

While in general I agree with the premise that neither party want's to make the changes I do see at least one outside influence pushing one side to do the right thing...how that fairs remains to be seen.

Right, of course the minority party is going to go against the party in power (to the tune of 1% of the budget at least).

What excuse is there for the soaring debt, wildly expanding government, creating new huge programs despite the debt, increasing spending to never before seen heights during the full republican control from 2001-2007? Don't give me the wars, they increased spending in welfare/social security/pork barrel spending all 6 of those years.

Just make yourself this promise, if your republicans raise the budget when they have power, PLEASE at least then recognize both parties for what they are; fiscal liberals.

 

[Avorysuds]

Guys, really. There was NO talk of any spending cuts from Obama or any other Dem until the GOP got control of the House.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama was asked about McCain's promise to "balance the budget before the end of my second term" and Obama merely laughed and quipped, "that's not practical."

He is trying to paint himself as a spendthrift, a deficit hawk, and you're swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Forgetting conveniently that for two years with a supermajority Congress, he could have done anything he wanted. Curbing spending was NOT on the agenda.

Let's call it like it is.

What will you say if I pull old video of him talking cuts?

Are you going to admit you were wrong about that point, or are you going to play it off with the next point?

I'm not saying the behavior and the words are matching up, but to say that he's never mentioned cuts is outright false so.....no sense in saying what's false publically.

No you're still wrong... Announceing publicly that "cuts need to be made" and actually talking cuts in the debate over the budget are 2 different things. That's just reality.

 

[Avorysuds]

In both of Obama's state of the unions, he called on all departments to analyze and report back to him any waste and cuts that can be made.

Silly, I know. Why would a Democrat say such a thing?

Because he knows poeple like yourself were watching nd will repeat him... Now, as you said before, does he do anthing after all that "talk"? The answer is no.