Somebody explain this to me

It doesn't make sense to put out a plan that Republicans say they will reject anyways. That would waste a lot of time we do not have.



Well, maybe they could start by issuing the plan, that is to say, the budget for 2009. Or for 2010. Or for 2011.

These worthless, lying a-holes haven't had a plan, or a clue, on spending since they got the majority. They are are blindly leading us all off the cliff.

Democrats have given in to spending cuts. But the Republicans will not raise the debt limit unless Obama agress to continue the Bush tax cuts which he said he wouldn't do.
The Dems have only agreed to cuts in the out years and from the current baseline. We'll never see real cuts that way, and raising taxes would put a damper on job/economic growth and therefore revenues. The Dems want to continue the status quo, and the Reps want real change, meaning returning govt spending to pre '08 levels.
 
Last edited:



Not trying to be arbitrary here, but they are INCREASEING the debt by 1.5 Trillion per year.

They propose to decrease burrowing by 4 Trillion over ten years.

That's a Four Trillion reduction vs. a 15 Trillion dollar increase.

Sounds to me like their sweeping plan is a plan for another 11 Trillion dollars of debt.

What are these lying a-holes smoking? Do they think we are all smoking the same stuff?
and the conservative/republican plan HAS ZERO DEBT ADDED the next 10 years, RIGHT? hahahahaha! NOT!
Which is better for the country: $1.5-trillion or higher annual deficits, particularly when bond rates go higher as they must, higher taxes, more unemployment at real 12% levels, a weaker economy ... or a return to Bush era sized deficits, no net tax increase, and a return to 4-5 percent unemployment?
 
Not trying to be arbitrary here, but they are INCREASEING the debt by 1.5 Trillion per year.

They propose to decrease burrowing by 4 Trillion over ten years.

That's a Four Trillion reduction vs. a 15 Trillion dollar increase.

Sounds to me like their sweeping plan is a plan for another 11 Trillion dollars of debt.

What are these lying a-holes smoking? Do they think we are all smoking the same stuff?
and the conservative/republican plan HAS ZERO DEBT ADDED the next 10 years, RIGHT? hahahahaha! NOT!
Which is better for the country: $1.5-trillion or higher annual deficits, particularly when bond rates go higher as they must, higher taxes, more unemployment at real 12% levels, a weaker economy ... or a return to Bush era sized deficits, no net tax increase, and a return to 4-5 percent unemployment?
what republican plan is there that brings us back to the bush level deficits AH? NONE that i am aware of....and also which level of deficit under bush are you speaking about?

His last fiscal year in office had 1.4 TRILLION in deficit, 1.3 trillion if you take out the obama stimulus that was spent before sept 30th, 2009- bush's fiscal end.

AND yes, it would be great if we could go all the way back to clinton's budget surplus.....forget bush's deficits and debt! those were the good ole days!

in addition AH, do you think it all stops with this one proposal and no other legislative measures over the next 10 years will be done to continue deficit and debt reductions or reforms on entitlements?

whatever proposed by the dems or repubs at the present, will not be the end of it!

care
 
The problem we face now is solely due to the Federal Reserve. I'm with Ron Paul and we MUST end the FED.

ABout five months after Kennedy tried to challenge the authority of the FED (see Executive Order 11110)

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 9, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): '(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of an outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

SECTION 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

John F. Kennedy, THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963.
he was dead.

Coincidence?

Well it certainly could be.

But as far as I can tell that was the last time any POTUS challenged the FED's control over the money supply.
 
The problem we face now is solely due to the Federal Reserve. I'm with Ron Paul and we MUST end the FED.

ABout five months after Kennedy tried to challenge the authority of the FED (see Executive Order 11110)

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 9, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): '(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of an outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,' and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

SECTION 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

John F. Kennedy, THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963.
he was dead.

Coincidence?

Well it certainly could be.

But as far as I can tell that was the last time any POTUS challenged the FED's control over the money supply.

What a stretch
 
President Lincoln after borrowing 400K from the fed and learning it would cost millions to repay it decided that it was time for America to print debt free money. These were called greenbacks which is were we get that term today. Like Kennedy he was assassinated.

There is a book titled, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" written by G. Edward Griffin. This tells the story of how the current fed came into existence. You can find a great video on this topic on YouTube.
Thanks for a great post editec
 
You are all focusing on Paul Ryan's BS plan and ignoring other plans, such as Rand Paul's plan, that actual get something done.

Sen. Paul Unveils 5-Year Budget Plan: Eliminates Four Federal Agencies - The Note

There are too many bad plans to count, and the few goods ones are ignored because mainstream politicians don't actually want to change anything.

People ignore Rand Paul's plan because it's too radical to ever pass. Republicans hate it more than the Democrats do, because it shows the kind of cuts required to balance the budget by spending cuts alone.
 
We're looking at an annual deficit of 1.5 or 1.6 trillion dollars. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to about 1 trillion over the next 10 years, which is about 100 billion per year. I doubt you'd actually get that much, but say you did, doesn't that leave 1.4 - 1.5 trillion left in deficits? Where are you going to get that money? What spending are you going to cut? I haven't seen anything definite from the pres or from the dems in Congress for what they'll cut, why is that? Shouldn't the American people see a plan from both sides?

You realize that if you suck a trillion dollars out of the economy over the next 10 years that there is an economic cost, right? Investments made by Americans will be reduced, as will foreign investments that we won't get the tax benefits from. Money flows to where it gets the most return, and there are plenty of emerging markets to invest in. Seems to me the democrats want a bigger piece of the same size pie rather than getting the same size piece of out a bigger pie. What's the difference? A bigger pie means more jobs, that's why. It also means less money going out in UE benefits and other gov't programs.

So tell me, if raising taxes is a good thing, why is every other country LOWERING taxes and cutting spending? ALL OF THEM, nobody is raising taxes. 15 years ago Canada was where we are now, relatively speaking. You know how they turned things around? They lowered taxes and cut spending. So why in God's name is Obama and the Dems trying to do the opposite?

that's why you need to return us to our previous revenue levels. the concept of being able to close the deficit just on tax cuts is a rightwing fantasy.
 
We're looking at an annual deficit of 1.5 or 1.6 trillion dollars. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to about 1 trillion over the next 10 years, which is about 100 billion per year. I doubt you'd actually get that much, but say you did, doesn't that leave 1.4 - 1.5 trillion left in deficits? Where are you going to get that money? What spending are you going to cut? I haven't seen anything definite from the pres or from the dems in Congress for what they'll cut, why is that? Shouldn't the American people see a plan from both sides?

You realize that if you suck a trillion dollars out of the economy over the next 10 years that there is an economic cost, right? Investments made by Americans will be reduced, as will foreign investments that we won't get the tax benefits from. Money flows to where it gets the most return, and there are plenty of emerging markets to invest in. Seems to me the democrats want a bigger piece of the same size pie rather than getting the same size piece of out a bigger pie. What's the difference? A bigger pie means more jobs, that's why. It also means less money going out in UE benefits and other gov't programs.

So tell me, if raising taxes is a good thing, why is every other country LOWERING taxes and cutting spending? ALL OF THEM, nobody is raising taxes. 15 years ago Canada was where we are now, relatively speaking. You know how they turned things around? They lowered taxes and cut spending. So why in God's name is Obama and the Dems trying to do the opposite?

that's why you need to return us to our previous revenue levels. the concept of being able to close the deficit just on tax cuts is a rightwing fantasy.

so how do you propose to "return us to our previous revenue levels"?
 
A slight touch of reality

If everything but interest on the debt, defense and entitlements is cut the national debt increases.

To cut defense it is necessary to cut back missions i. e. stop the Libyan mess and shut up about Syria. This is not on the table because the Prez doesn't like it.

Entitlement reform as in indexing it to life expectancy is possible but the Prez refuses to talk about it.

Renouncing the national debt means you will have a balanced budget forever. The Prez can't stand this.

By any objective measure the GOP are a pack of incompetents and crooks, compared to the Ds they are waterwalkers.
 
How to fix the financial problem.

1. End the Federal Reserve System. The dollar today is worth 4 cents against what it was in 1913
when we passed the Federal Reserve Act.

2. Create a new debt free currency backed by gold and silver. Our current money is backed by nothing, created out of thin air. Each time the fed prints more money it devalues our dollar.

3. Bring ALL of our troops home. We currently have troops in 130 countries and we also maintain 700 bases world wide. Think of the savings of doing this.

4. Create a United States lottery. Just the state of Texas alone makes billions in profits each year from its lottery. If we had a U.S. lottery in each state, and allowed the winnings to be taxed free, and gave each state a piece of the pie I think this would generate hundreds of billions.

5. End all lobbying in Washington. Make it illegal for ANY politician to except money from any cooperation while in office. Maybe than our votes would count.

6. Get back to the United States Constitution.

7. Elect Ron Paul in the 2012 Election.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top