Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[bripat9643]

Well Republicans could try the trickle down thing again.

You mean the free market?

 

[Koios]

Well Republicans could try the trickle down thing again.

You mean the free market?

No. They are very different. One is a tax policy (ss/td) essentially, based on some utterly debunked assumptions. The other is a thing we're free to enter, that some foolishly think is a free-for-all, which merely exposes the depth of rightie ignorance.

Does that clear it up for you?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Roflmao

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

members of the GOP could always opt out of Medicare and SS and take some personal responsibility. no one is forcing them to use these services.

 

[oldfart]

Over the cliff...hands up...woohoo!!!!!

Agreed. Lets get rid of Evil-Bush's tax cuts for everybody and enjoy the ride.

I think everyone forgets the reasoning behind the Bush tax cuts. He didn't push for them as a stimulus to get the economy growing. He pushed for them because the CBO was anticipating large surpluses in the upcoming years, and Bush felt that the extra revenue should go back to the taxpayers. Had the CBO been projecting more deficits at the time, I don't believe Bush would have promoted the tax cuts. Even if he had, I don't think he would have gotten them.

But this is exactly the prescription for financial catastrophe! Everybody wants some kind of balanced budget of one kind or another. Balancing a budget in a one year cycle is clearly impossible, So the first approximation is the cyclically balanced budget. The idea is that we have to run deficits to foster economic recover in downturns, but we can pay down the debt in good times. This achieves two goals: it keeps the long-term debt manageable and it can help as a break on inflation in a boom economy. This was the general idea behind both the Carter and Clinton budget surpluses that Reagan and Bush inherited. So what did they do? They didn't pay down the debt, they gave tax cuts to their friends and donors to the extent that long term revenues could not meet even the reduced long term expenses they created (like wars on the credit card). This is what masquerades as fiscal responsibility these days.

Of course fiscal conservatism was never the objective in the first place. The objective was to give breaks to the wealthy and connected in the form of deregulation, government contracts, and tax breaks. At the same time they hoped to cut spending on the 99% who were not getting these breaks and hoping that a liberal dose of racism and class warfare would provide enough political smoke to cover them. And a few who realized that this reckless behavior was likely to end in a total economic collapse or a thermonuclear war, just prayed that everything would hold together until it was someone else's problem.

 

[bripat9643]

Well Republicans could try the trickle down thing again.

You mean the free market?

No. They are very different. One is a tax policy (ss/td) essentially, based on some utterly debunked assumptions. The other is a thing we're free to enter, that some foolishly think is a free-for-all, which merely exposes the depth of rightie ignorance.

Does that clear it up for you?

"trickle down" is simply an insulting term Democrats invented to refer to capitalism. There are thousands of pinko professors on the government payroll who sit around all day thinking up these kinds of things. That's their full time job, to justify expanding the control of the government and taking a bigger chunk out of the hides of taxpayers.

Anyone who uses the term "trickle down" simply exposes himself has a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

 

[bripat9643]

members of the GOP could always opt out of Medicare and SS and take some personal responsibility. no one is forcing them to use these services.

They are forcing us to pay for them, you fascist asshole.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

members of the GOP could always opt out of Medicare and SS and take some personal responsibility. no one is forcing them to use these services.

They are forcing us to pay for them, you fascist asshole.

name calling again, thanks.

i pay taxes that support schools, yet i dont have any school aged children. i pay taxes that support national parks, yet i do not frequent them. i pay taxes that support the interstate highway system, yet use less than 1% of the roads. i pay taxes that support wars, yet i agree with none of them.

only wing nuts like yourself can justify idiot logic. no one forces you to apply for SS, no one forces you to use Medicare. if youre so against the program you are free to opt out. so man up or shut up.

 

[ilia25]

This is a problem for both parties, and it is the main reason we can't have an honest discussion on entitlements, specifically SS and Medicare. Cuts are going to have to be made, especially to Medicare. Without them, there is no way Medicare is sustainable.

NO!

WE. DON'T. HAVE. TO. CUT. MEDICARE!

All we have to do to make it sustainable, is to fund it sufficiently.

There isn't enough money on the entire planet to "fund it sufficiently."

What a bull! Medicare cost will increase by just 5% of GDP by 2045!
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/medicare-spending-deficits-560.jpg

Canada has medicare covering EVERYONE. Why can't we cover our seniors?

Canada rations care. Sending granny home to die is how Canada reduces costs.

Would you stop lying already?

I guess that is a rhetorical question.

 

[bripat9643]

members of the GOP could always opt out of Medicare and SS and take some personal responsibility. no one is forcing them to use these services.

They are forcing us to pay for them, you fascist asshole.

name calling again, thanks.

No, that's simply an accurate term for your political agenda.

i pay taxes that support schools, yet i dont have any school aged children. i pay taxes that support national parks, yet i do not frequent them. i pay taxes that support the interstate highway system, yet use less than 1% of the roads. i pay taxes that support wars, yet i agree with none of them.

is it like you have some choice in any of those things? Does that make you "personally responsible" somehow?

only wing nuts like yourself can justify idiot logic. no one forces you to apply for SS, no one forces you to use Medicare. if youre so against the program you are free to opt out. so man up or shut up.

True, but I am forced to pay for it, you fascist asshole.

That's the bottom line, which you failed to address. What is it you think you're proving? How does not taking benefits you have been forced to pay for at gunpoint make you "responsible?"

Are you even capable of following a simple argument?

 

[bripat9643]

NO!

WE. DON'T. HAVE. TO. CUT. MEDICARE!

All we have to do to make it sustainable, is to fund it sufficiently.

There isn't enough money on the entire planet to "fund it sufficiently."

What a bull! Medicare cost will increase by just 5% of GDP by 2045!
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/medicare-spending-deficits-560.jpg

Medicare spending is currently a 5% of GDP. An increase by 5% of GDP would bring total Medicare spending to 10% of GDP, and it will continue to increase after that. If you think that kind of spending is sustainable, then you must be a Democrat.

Canada has medicare covering EVERYONE. Why can't we cover our seniors?

Canada rations care. Sending granny home to die is how Canada reduces costs.

Would you stop lying already?

I guess that is a rhetorical question.

It's not a lie. The government of Canada refuses treatment to people who are "too old to benefit." It also delays care for things like cancer until it's too late for the patient to benefit from treatment.

 

[Koios]

You mean the free market?

No. They are very different. One is a tax policy (ss/td) essentially, based on some utterly debunked assumptions. The other is a thing we're free to enter, that some foolishly think is a free-for-all, which merely exposes the depth of rightie ignorance.

Does that clear it up for you?

"trickle down" is simply an insulting term Democrats invented to refer to capitalism. There are thousands of pinko professors on the government payroll who sit around all day thinking up these kinds of things. That's their full time job, to justify expanding the control of the government and taking a bigger chunk out of the hides of taxpayers.

Anyone who uses the term "trickle down" simply exposes himself has a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

Then tell David Stockman, Reagan's director of the OMB to stop being a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

It was he who brought the term into the broad American conscious.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

They are forcing us to pay for them, you fascist asshole.

name calling again, thanks.

No, that's simply an accurate term for your political agenda.

i pay taxes that support schools, yet i dont have any school aged children. i pay taxes that support national parks, yet i do not frequent them. i pay taxes that support the interstate highway system, yet use less than 1% of the roads. i pay taxes that support wars, yet i agree with none of them.

is it like you have some choice in any of those things? Does that make you "personally responsible" somehow?

only wing nuts like yourself can justify idiot logic. no one forces you to apply for SS, no one forces you to use Medicare. if youre so against the program you are free to opt out. so man up or shut up.

True, but I am forced to pay for it, you fascist asshole.

That's the bottom line, which you failed to address. What is it you think you're proving? How does not taking benefits you have been forced to pay for at gunpoint make you "responsible?

Are you even capable of following a simple argument?

call me a fascist again. it proves only the point that you are an uneducated prick who has no discernible intelligence and simply resorts to name calling when you have nothing intellectual to add to the conversation.

again, no one is forcing you to use those services. if you elect no to, the cost of the programs decreases by simple mathematics.

i dont use many of the services i listed, I unlike you however, dont rail against the government for providing them.

if you have the way the country is run, you are free to return back to Britain with the socialist health care system and government provided social security.

 

[bripat9643]

No. They are very different. One is a tax policy (ss/td) essentially, based on some utterly debunked assumptions. The other is a thing we're free to enter, that some foolishly think is a free-for-all, which merely exposes the depth of rightie ignorance.

Does that clear it up for you?

"trickle down" is simply an insulting term Democrats invented to refer to capitalism. There are thousands of pinko professors on the government payroll who sit around all day thinking up these kinds of things. That's their full time job, to justify expanding the control of the government and taking a bigger chunk out of the hides of taxpayers.

Anyone who uses the term "trickle down" simply exposes himself has a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

Then tell David Stockman, Reagan's director of the OMB to stop being a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

It was he who brought the term into the broad American conscious.

Stockman certain was no free marketeer. he was a RINO, at best.

You're delusional if you think right-wingers are fans of David Stockman.

 

[Koios]

"trickle down" is simply an insulting term Democrats invented to refer to capitalism. There are thousands of pinko professors on the government payroll who sit around all day thinking up these kinds of things. That's their full time job, to justify expanding the control of the government and taking a bigger chunk out of the hides of taxpayers.

Anyone who uses the term "trickle down" simply exposes himself has a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

Then tell David Stockman, Reagan's director of the OMB to stop being a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

It was he who brought the term into the broad American conscious.

Stockman certain was no free marketeer. he was a RINO, at best.

You're delusional if you think right-wingers are fans of David Stockman.

Yes. That was apparently your opinion of any who use the term, trickle-down.

And indeed, right-wingers today are so bat-shit loony, even Reagan Admin officials who advanced the failed economic principles you cling to while running away from the names given them, are leftists.

But it has comedic value. So there's that.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Then tell David Stockman, Reagan's director of the OMB to stop being a hater of capitalism and everything America once stood for.

It was he who brought the term into the broad American conscious.

Stockman certain was no free marketeer. he was a RINO, at best.

You're delusional if you think right-wingers are fans of David Stockman.

Yes. That was apparently your opinion of any who use the term, trickle-down.

And indeed, right-wingers today are so bat-shit loony, even Reagan Admin officials who advanced the failed economic principles you cling to while running away from the names given them, are leftists.

But it has comedic value. So there's that.

did he just admit that Reagan was a liberal?

 

[ilia25]

There isn't enough money on the entire planet to "fund it sufficiently."

What a bull! Medicare cost will increase by just 5% of GDP by 2045!
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/medicare-spending-deficits-560.jpg

Medicare spending is currently a 5% of GDP. An increase by 5% of GDP would bring total Medicare spending to 10% of GDP, and it will continue to increase after that. If you think that kind of spending is sustainable, then you must be a Democrat.

Canada rations care. Sending granny home to die is how Canada reduces costs.

Would you stop lying already?

I guess that is a rhetorical question.

It's not a lie. The government of Canada refuses treatment to people who are "too old to benefit." It also delays care for things like cancer until it's too late for the patient to benefit from treatment.

That is a lie. Repeating it won't make it true.

 

[Bern80]

Unfortuantely Republicans are caught in a situation where doing what is right is going to be very unpopular. They have been caught trying to play the game the democrats way where whomever promises the most 'stuff' to people gets elected. Instead of educating people that government operating in this way is simply not sustainable.

The problem is quite simple. Government has promised too much to too many for too long. We're now 16 trillion + in debt. When you're that far in debt you can stop spending as much, start taking in more or a combination of both. I am not oppposed to governemnt increasing revenue, just not in the form of tax increases. It isn't the public's fault that the government can't control its spending. I am fine with eliminating deductions, credits, etc. The harder part will be the cuts because to make any real difference in the debt, government spending cuts will have to be huge. The democrats won't do it because well democrats are financially illiterate and less government spending just plain isn't in their lexicon. Republicans won't do it because they're more concerned about getting elected than doing what needs to be done to change the financial health of the country.

Since we know what has to happen to get our financial hous in order, I'm not really sure why we are trying to prevent any of things that will happen with the 'fiscal cliff'. Any agreement reached is going to just be window dressing and do basically nothing and just pass the buck to future generation

 

[Koios]

What a bull! Medicare cost will increase by just 5% of GDP by 2045!
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/medicare-spending-deficits-560.jpg

Medicare spending is currently a 5% of GDP. An increase by 5% of GDP would bring total Medicare spending to 10% of GDP, and it will continue to increase after that. If you think that kind of spending is sustainable, then you must be a Democrat.

Would you stop lying already?

I guess that is a rhetorical question.

It's not a lie. The government of Canada refuses treatment to people who are "too old to benefit." It also delays care for things like cancer until it's too late for the patient to benefit from treatment.

That is a lie. Repeating it won't make it true.

Indeed it is. Canadians have longer life-expectancy than Americans.

 

[ilia25]

The problem is quite simple. Government has promised too much to too many for too long.

No -- the government have not promised anything beyond any civilized country has been doing, which is caring for its seniors and disabled.

It was not "too much" it is simply underfunded by a few percentage of GDP. Nothing we can't afford.