Watching Boehner news conference now

[Meister]

He is digging in his heels. No tax increases. Spending must be cut. Cliff looks imminent. ...

He doesn't have a choice on tax increases. They expire no matter how many temper tantrums he throws..the question is he going to hurt the middle class to continue the free ride for the rich.

But, raising taxes on the rich isn't doing anything....nothing. We'll still be over a trillion short with the dificit. That's the part you people want to avoid with a discussion.

I know, I know, just light up your joint and all will be well with the world.

 

[edthecynic]

Back around post #60. All we asked him was to tell us what cuts. He's seems to be the only one in America who knows what Obama wants to cut.

Or perhaps took round numbers as having meaning, which they do not void of specifics. But no worries. Google make life pretty easy for folks with curiosity.

brb ...

I'm finding zip, except some articles on $1.1 trillion in cuts over a decade, which if past performace is a guide, it usually means spending increases for a year or a few, but by plugging in a growth percentage estimate that's a bit rosy, the fuzzy math works.

Thus I'm more of a program-eliminator than a $ / % cut advocate. Spending spiked under Bush 43, largely due to new programs: Medicare Part D, Wars, Homeland Security, etc. Thus spending is higher now in support of those ongoing programs; and it's folly to think spending will go back down until we eliminate what was added.

CON$ always find zip when they are only looking for zip!!!

President Obama's Record and Proposals for Cutting Spending | The White House

THE PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED $1 TRILLION IN DISCRETIONARY CUTS INTO LAW AS PART OF THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT:

President Obama signed into law $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years. As part of the 2011 debt agreement the President cut $1,028 billion in discretionary spending through the Budget Control Act. Together with another $676 billion in discretionary savings through annual appropriations bills and interest savings, this will reduce spending by over $2 trillion. As a result, annual discretionary spending is projected to fall to its lowest levels on record, measured as a share of the economy.

A breakdown of these savings is in Table S-3 (pg 24) of the Mid-Session Review of the President’s Budget.
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.

In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
THE PRESIDENT HAS PUT FORWARD SPECIFIC CUTS IN MANDATORY HEALTH SPENDING:

The President signed into law health savings in the Affordable Care Act that paid for the improving health coverage and reduced the deficit by over $100 billion over a decade. These policies contributed to slowing baseline growth in Medicare and Medicaid to that of GDP on a per capita basis. And, once its policies are fully phased in, the health care law slows the growth in national health spending.

The President has put forward detailed and specific health savings totaling more than $300 billion, all verified by the CBO in their March analysis of the President’s Budget. The health proposals in the President’s budget total to $340 billion according to CBO scoring ($362 billion in the original budget proposal the President put forward, reduced for some changes that went into effect). Some of the Medicare reforms include implementing new Medicare Part D drug rebates for drugs provided to low-income beneficiaries ($137 billion), reducing Medicare payments for bad debts ($24 billion), and increasing income-related premiums for higher-income beneficiaries in Medicare Parts B and D beginning in 2017 ($30 billion).

snip/

UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S WATCH SPENDING GREW AT THE SLOWEST PACE SINCE EISENHOWER:

Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.

This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”

 

[Truthseeker420]

He is digging in his heels. No tax increases. Spending must be cut. Cliff looks imminent. ...

He doesn't have a choice on tax increases. They expire no matter how many temper tantrums he throws..the question is he going to hurt the middle class to continue the free ride for the rich.

But, raising taxes on the rich isn't doing anything....nothing. We'll still be over a trillion short with the dificit. That's the part you people want to avoid with a discussion.

I know, I know, just light up your joint and all will be well with the world.

It raises revenue and adds a more balanced and fair approach to taxes. Let the tax cuts expire, I'm not really worried about my taxes going up.

 

[DiamondDave]

He doesn't have a choice on tax increases. They expire no matter how many temper tantrums he throws..the question is he going to hurt the middle class to continue the free ride for the rich.

But, raising taxes on the rich isn't doing anything....nothing. We'll still be over a trillion short with the dificit. That's the part you people want to avoid with a discussion.

I know, I know, just light up your joint and all will be well with the world.

It raises revenue and adds a more balanced and fair approach to taxes. Let the tax cuts expire, I'm not really worried about my taxes going up.

1) It barely adds any more revenue
2) It is not more balanced.. unless you think 40% for some and 0% for many others is 'balanced'
3) Fair is SUBJECTIVE
4) Fuck off, idiot

 

[Koios]

Or perhaps took round numbers as having meaning, which they do not void of specifics. But no worries. Google make life pretty easy for folks with curiosity.

brb ...

I'm finding zip, except some articles on $1.1 trillion in cuts over a decade, which if past performace is a guide, it usually means spending increases for a year or a few, but by plugging in a growth percentage estimate that's a bit rosy, the fuzzy math works.

Thus I'm more of a program-eliminator than a $ / % cut advocate. Spending spiked under Bush 43, largely due to new programs: Medicare Part D, Wars, Homeland Security, etc. Thus spending is higher now in support of those ongoing programs; and it's folly to think spending will go back down until we eliminate what was added.

CON$ always find zip when they are only looking for zip!!!

President Obama's Record and Proposals for Cutting Spending | The White House

THE PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED $1 TRILLION IN DISCRETIONARY CUTS INTO LAW AS PART OF THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT:

President Obama signed into law $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years. As part of the 2011 debt agreement the President cut $1,028 billion in discretionary spending through the Budget Control Act. Together with another $676 billion in discretionary savings through annual appropriations bills and interest savings, this will reduce spending by over $2 trillion. As a result, annual discretionary spending is projected to fall to its lowest levels on record, measured as a share of the economy.

A breakdown of these savings is in Table S-3 (pg 24) of the Mid-Session Review of the President’s Budget.
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.

In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
THE PRESIDENT HAS PUT FORWARD SPECIFIC CUTS IN MANDATORY HEALTH SPENDING:

The President signed into law health savings in the Affordable Care Act that paid for the improving health coverage and reduced the deficit by over $100 billion over a decade. These policies contributed to slowing baseline growth in Medicare and Medicaid to that of GDP on a per capita basis. And, once its policies are fully phased in, the health care law slows the growth in national health spending.

The President has put forward detailed and specific health savings totaling more than $300 billion, all verified by the CBO in their March analysis of the President’s Budget. The health proposals in the President’s budget total to $340 billion according to CBO scoring ($362 billion in the original budget proposal the President put forward, reduced for some changes that went into effect). Some of the Medicare reforms include implementing new Medicare Part D drug rebates for drugs provided to low-income beneficiaries ($137 billion), reducing Medicare payments for bad debts ($24 billion), and increasing income-related premiums for higher-income beneficiaries in Medicare Parts B and D beginning in 2017 ($30 billion).

snip/

UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S WATCH SPENDING GREW AT THE SLOWEST PACE SINCE EISENHOWER:

Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.

This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”

Coupla things:

I may be less Con than you think. But perhaps others can weigh-in.

Moreover, as is often the case, spending cuts are being kicked down the road, since none really like saying what will be cut, since folks hate losing stuff they like almost as much as Cons hate actually paying for anything.

And my concern is cutting $167 Billion a year (debt service is not a cut per se; it's a non-accural of a future expense) in actual spending is a smidge draconian in a country whose economy only grows, typically, a little less than $200 Billion a year. So let's say things pick back up and we have nice growth of around 3%, then take $167 Billion in spending out of the economy. Now where are we? Flat, nearly, and knocking on the door of a recession.

For godsake just fucking raise taxes. We've done it before and only had success. Quit sucking Tea Party dick while the movement is already dying out.

 

[Truthseeker420]

But, raising taxes on the rich isn't doing anything....nothing. We'll still be over a trillion short with the dificit. That's the part you people want to avoid with a discussion.

I know, I know, just light up your joint and all will be well with the world.

It raises revenue and adds a more balanced and fair approach to taxes. Let the tax cuts expire, I'm not really worried about my taxes going up.

1) It barely adds any more revenue
2) It is not more balanced.. unless you think 40% for some and 0% for many others is 'balanced'
3) Fair is SUBJECTIVE
4) Fuck off, idiot

40% ? Romney paid what? 12% anyone who pays 40% is the idiot.

 

[MikeK]

It will be good for us in the long run.

But imagine how those tweener Obama voters are going to feel when the financial shitstorm of tax increases and Obamacare hit them.

It could be good in the long run if the right-wing dolts wake up to the fact that they've been voting against their own interests and they wipe out the Republican House in the mid-terms. Many of these idiots are seniors on Social Security and Medicare but are walking around with tea-bags dangling from their hat brims and parroting Rush Limbaugh propaganda.

And there are dimwits, many in this forum, whose parents and/or grandparents are on Social Security and Medicare but they couldn't care less. They will vote to reduce those benefits to avoid having the taxes of people like Mitt Romney and the Koch Brothers increased. So it seems things will need to get worse before they can get better.

Someone (I don't recall who) said the U.S. is too big and powerful to be defeated from without but eventually will begin devouring itself. I see that happening.

Pogo said; We have met the enemy and it it us.

 

[Mustang]

If the GOP can't run the country, then they'll run it into the ground instead (not that there's really much difference between the two).

 

[beretta304]

The Unions would help long before the koch brother types.

It will be good for us in the long run.

But imagine how those tweener Obama voters are going to feel when the financial shitstorm of tax increases and Obamacare hit them.

Maybe their Unions will help them through their tough times ahead.

As well they should, They collect dues, don't they? The Koch Bros "types' owe no one anything.

 

[rightwinger]

Boehner needs to go. He has been a failure as Speaker. He has no significant legislation and now can't pass a simple agreement to save the country from financial collapse

No doubt the worst speaker in history

 

[DiamondDave]

It raises revenue and adds a more balanced and fair approach to taxes. Let the tax cuts expire, I'm not really worried about my taxes going up.

1) It barely adds any more revenue
2) It is not more balanced.. unless you think 40% for some and 0% for many others is 'balanced'
3) Fair is SUBJECTIVE
4) Fuck off, idiot

40% ? Romney paid what? 12% anyone who pays 40% is the idiot.

Romney paid 14 or so % on an income of mostly capital gains (taxed at 15% which is the most anyone should be paying on any income)... lest we forget all the other taxes paid... but hey, punish those 'evil rich', right??