Republicans/Conservatives - Would You Accept This Deal?

[eflatminor]

Would you accept a deal that raised taxes on high income earners if the Democrats offered to cut baseline spending or absolute levels of spending?

First, would those cuts happen now or over some period of time in the future? Cuz whatever you're offering, if the cuts don't happen NOW, I'm not interested.

Then I'd ask if you're talking about actual cuts, as in the overall government spending less this year compared to last year, or are you talking about slightly reducing the planned rate of increased spending? If it's the latter, I'm not interested.

So, once we answer those questions, I'd ask you why in the hell would you want to raise taxes, especially when the economy is in the shitter? What do you hope to accomplish by this move?

 

[jillian]

The reason why I ask is because the market thinks Republicans are going to cut a deal, and I want to know what the Right thinks about such a deal.

It is hard for me to believe that the Democrats will cut actual spending. I believe they will agree to baseline cuts in the future, but I don't think they'll really cut spending.

My own belief is that such a deal would not be acceptable to the Republican base.

They'll cut a deal for two reasons:

1) To keep from being made the villains by the lamestream media, which we know will happen.

2) To preserve their pet Pentagon spending projects.

Mark it down.

your first point is ridiculous.

your second point is correct....but not until after the bush tax cuts go away...

that way they can vote to lower taxes so they don't make grover cry

 

[eflatminor]

"Savings"?!?!?!?...I smell bullshit.

Where are the CUTS?..Y'know, less money spent next year in comparison to this year?

 

[Sallow]

Dems will never cut spending, not ever unless its the military and only the military

What Bullshit.

Obama found savings in Medicare and with Student Loans.

Republicans had a cow over that.

And there's more stuff like that around.

The thing is..well connected lobbyists do not want to get rid of the big pork.

And Republicans have no trouble telling the poor and elderly to do without.

"Savings"?!?!?!?...I smell bullshit.

Where are the CUTS?..Y'know, less money spent next year in comparison to this year?

G'head, list 'em....Dazzle us.

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

We could cancel the debts left by the last administration, but, boy howdy, you'd hear lots of hootin and hollering from the right and their ever lovin' lobbyists!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They'll cut a deal for two reasons:

1) To keep from being made the villains by the lamestream media, which we know will happen.

2) To preserve their pet Pentagon spending projects.

Mark it down.

Republicans are the Jews to Progressive Fascists

No. Seriously. No.

Yes. Every Progressive Leader needs a scapegoat

 

[Oddball]

What Bullshit.

Obama found savings in Medicare and with Student Loans.

Republicans had a cow over that.

And there's more stuff like that around.

The thing is..well connected lobbyists do not want to get rid of the big pork.

And Republicans have no trouble telling the poor and elderly to do without.

"Savings"?!?!?!?...I smell bullshit.

Where are the CUTS?..Y'know, less money spent next year in comparison to this year?

G'head, list 'em....Dazzle us.

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

We could cancel the debts left by the last administration, but, boy howdy, you'd hear lots of hootin and hollering from the right and their ever lovin' lobbyists!

OK...So you got nothing but BLAME BOOOOOOOOOSH!

Figured.

 

[Oddball]

The reason why I ask is because the market thinks Republicans are going to cut a deal, and I want to know what the Right thinks about such a deal.

It is hard for me to believe that the Democrats will cut actual spending. I believe they will agree to baseline cuts in the future, but I don't think they'll really cut spending.

My own belief is that such a deal would not be acceptable to the Republican base.

They'll cut a deal for two reasons:

1) To keep from being made the villains by the lamestream media, which we know will happen.

2) To preserve their pet Pentagon spending projects.

Mark it down.

your first point is ridiculous.

your second point is correct....but not until after the bush tax cuts go away...

that way they can vote to lower taxes so they don't make grover cry

Both points are factual....That you refuse to recognize that the lamestream media is in the tank for the east coast leftist elite in general, and your matinee idol Obiedoodle in particular, is your cognitive delusion.

Your Boiking owns the "Bush tax cuts", as he has signed off on keeping those rates in place twice.

Because of the sequester agreement ,all tax rates will go up, regardless of Norquist.

Steer clear of the brown acid, m'kay?

 

[eflatminor]

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

Flat, and horrendously high. $16.3 trillion and rising fast...

The real problem, when you bring in around $2 Trillion in tax revenue, is total federal spending:

2007 $2.7 Trillion
2008 $3.0 Trillion
2009 $3.5 Trillion
2010 $3.5 Trillion
2011 $3.6 Trillion

 

[jillian]

They'll cut a deal for two reasons:

1) To keep from being made the villains by the lamestream media, which we know will happen.

2) To preserve their pet Pentagon spending projects.

Mark it down.

your first point is ridiculous.

your second point is correct....but not until after the bush tax cuts go away...

that way they can vote to lower taxes so they don't make grover cry

Both points are factual....That you refuse to recognize that the lamestream media is in the tank for the east coast leftist elite in general, and your matinee idol Obiedoodle in particular, is your cognitive delusion.

Your Boiking owns the "Bush tax cuts", as he has signed off on keeping those rates in place twice.

Because of the sequester agreement all tax rates will go up, regardless of Norquist.

Steer clear of the brown acid, m'kay?

listen, i can't help it if you have issues with reality...

i suppose the unskewed polls were right, too, huh?

as for the boiking garbage... save it... it's stupid.

 

[Sallow]

"Savings"?!?!?!?...I smell bullshit.

Where are the CUTS?..Y'know, less money spent next year in comparison to this year?

G'head, list 'em....Dazzle us.

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

We could cancel the debts left by the last administration, but, boy howdy, you'd hear lots of hootin and hollering from the right and their ever lovin' lobbyists!

OK...So you got nothing but BLAME BOOOOOOOOOSH!

Figured.

Yes.

History stopped around 2000 and restarted around 2009..

Right?



But seriously..

Is cancelling debt a viable option in your world?

 

[Sallow]

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

Flat, and horrendously high. $16.3 trillion and rising fast...

The real problem, when you bring in around $2 Trillion in tax revenue, is total federal spending:

2007 $2.7 Trillion
2008 $3.0 Trillion
2009 $3.5 Trillion
2010 $3.5 Trillion
2011 $3.6 Trillion

The Deficit went from surplus to horrendously high, starting when exactly?

If spending is slowing..which it is..it's reasonable to assume..that it will eventually reverse the trajectory.

And if that's the trend..why do you want that to stop?

 

[Oddball]

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

We could cancel the debts left by the last administration, but, boy howdy, you'd hear lots of hootin and hollering from the right and their ever lovin' lobbyists!

OK...So you got nothing but BLAME BOOOOOOOOOSH!

Figured.

Yes.

History stopped around 2000 and restarted around 2009..

Right?



But seriously..

Is cancelling debt a viable option in your world?

Right...And the spending binge and $5 trillion of new debt are just figments of the imagination, huh?


BTW, what is bankruptcy, if not cancelling of debt?

 

[Oddball]

your first point is ridiculous.

your second point is correct....but not until after the bush tax cuts go away...

that way they can vote to lower taxes so they don't make grover cry

Both points are factual....That you refuse to recognize that the lamestream media is in the tank for the east coast leftist elite in general, and your matinee idol Obiedoodle in particular, is your cognitive delusion.

Your Boiking owns the "Bush tax cuts", as he has signed off on keeping those rates in place twice.

Because of the sequester agreement all tax rates will go up, regardless of Norquist.

Steer clear of the brown acid, m'kay?

listen, i can't help it if you have issues with reality...

i suppose the unskewed polls were right, too, huh?

as for the boiking garbage... save it... it's stupid.

I live perfectly well in reality....It's what happens west of the Hudson River.

Out here, the "Bush tax cuts" were reauthorized twice by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania....HE owns them...That's a fact.

The sequester ("fiscal cliff" if you will), agreed upon by both sides (y'know, that "compromise" thingy), will cause all tax rates to go up, Grover Norquist notwithstanding.

Really...The brown acid....Don't take it.

 

[Sallow]

OK...So you got nothing but BLAME BOOOOOOOOOSH!

Figured.

Yes.

History stopped around 2000 and restarted around 2009..

Right?



But seriously..

Is cancelling debt a viable option in your world?

Right...And the spending binge and $5 trillion of new debt are just figments of the imagination, huh?


BTW, what is bankruptcy, if not cancelling of debt?

Obama added about a trillion in debt..the other 4 comes from "the name that shalt not be spoken".

Part of the reason most of the right is in a tizzy about the sequestration, is that they realize it's pretty drastic.

And it will hurt many of the states they live in because of the huge cuts in defense.

There's some pretty big cuts in entitlements as well.

Which will affect the very same states.

Sort of a one, two punch.

By the way..I am for it..because it will sunset the tax cuts. Which should have happened in 2010.

 

[Oddball]

Yes.

History stopped around 2000 and restarted around 2009..

Right?



But seriously..

Is cancelling debt a viable option in your world?

Right...And the spending binge and $5 trillion of new debt are just figments of the imagination, huh?


BTW, what is bankruptcy, if not cancelling of debt?

Obama added about a trillion in debt..the other 4 comes from "the name that shalt not be spoken".

Part of the reason most of the right is in a tizzy about the sequestration, is that they realize it's pretty drastic.

And it will hurt many of the states they live in because of the huge cuts in defense.

There's some pretty big cuts in entitlements as well.

Which will affect the very same states.

Sort of a one, two punch.

By the way..I am for it..because it will sunset the tax cuts. Which should have happened in 2010.

The other $4 trillion was spent by Oboingo, no matter how you try to shift the blame...He took over in '09, continued the spending, and he owns it.

I see there are no specific numbers to your claimed "pretty big cuts" to entitlements..Likely because there are none.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What Bullshit.

Obama found savings in Medicare and with Student Loans.

Republicans had a cow over that.

And there's more stuff like that around.

The thing is..well connected lobbyists do not want to get rid of the big pork.

And Republicans have no trouble telling the poor and elderly to do without.

"Savings"?!?!?!?...I smell bullshit.

Where are the CUTS?..Y'know, less money spent next year in comparison to this year?

G'head, list 'em....Dazzle us.

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

We could cancel the debts left by the last administration, but, boy howdy, you'd hear lots of hootin and hollering from the right and their ever lovin' lobbyists!

This is like saying about the Titanic, "it hasn't sunk any further"

Obama already got us downgraded

 

[Sallow]

Right...And the spending binge and $5 trillion of new debt are just figments of the imagination, huh?


BTW, what is bankruptcy, if not cancelling of debt?

Obama added about a trillion in debt..the other 4 comes from "the name that shalt not be spoken".

Part of the reason most of the right is in a tizzy about the sequestration, is that they realize it's pretty drastic.

And it will hurt many of the states they live in because of the huge cuts in defense.

There's some pretty big cuts in entitlements as well.

Which will affect the very same states.

Sort of a one, two punch.

By the way..I am for it..because it will sunset the tax cuts. Which should have happened in 2010.

The other $4 trillion was spent by Oboingo, no matter how you try to shift the blame...He took over in '09, continued the spending, and he owns it.

I see there are no specific numbers to your claimed "pretty big cuts" to entitlements..Likely because there are none.

Oh bullshit.

Paying down debt accrued by someone else doesn't give you ownership of it.

And fishing around the internet for wellworn facts that you are going to poo poo anyway ain't worth the time.

 

[Oddball]

Obiedoodle ran for the office....He won the office....He accepted the office....He spent the money....He fucking owns it.

 

[Sallow]

"Savings"?!?!?!?...I smell bullshit.

Where are the CUTS?..Y'know, less money spent next year in comparison to this year?

G'head, list 'em....Dazzle us.

Deficit spending's been relatively flat there, chief.

We could cancel the debts left by the last administration, but, boy howdy, you'd hear lots of hootin and hollering from the right and their ever lovin' lobbyists!

This is like saying about the Titanic, "it hasn't sunk any further"

Obama already got us downgraded

Yeah Frank..

Downgraded by the same folks that said Mortgage Backed Securities were golden!

But here's the funny part..for the first time in history..the factored in politics and right after making nearly a trillion dollar mistake.

Trustworthy folks..U Bet!

 

[Oddball]

Then he appointed some of those those same people to his cabinet and other high offices in the bureaucracy!

Nothing Boiking has done is his fault!