What is the Party of No Ideas (the Dims) proposing we should cut $$$

[The T]

We have been down this road of cutting proposed increases in future spending several times and we are still 14T in debt.
Wake up and quit being a partisan stooge.

The partisan stooge is you. And your post is proof.

You may not LIKE the proposals, and you might have other quibbles, but you cannot deny that the GOP has placed on the table a substantive proposal FOR cutting 2.5 Trillion in 10 years.

And the question is what liberal Democratics propose.

Naturally, YOU dodged, ducked, bobbed, weaved, deflected and evaded. We all see through that shit, lad.

You are not alone. In fact, your response makes you just another typical spineless hypocritical partisan hack lib.

Or perhaps the poster in question is just cynical like so many?

 

[The T]

The partisan stooge is you. And your post is proof.

You may not LIKE the proposals, and you might have other quibbles, but you cannot deny that the GOP has placed on the table a substantive proposal FOR cutting 2.5 Trillion in 10 years.

And the question is what liberal Democratics propose.

Naturally, YOU dodged, ducked, bobbed, weaved, deflected and evaded. We all see through that shit, lad.

You are not alone. In fact, your response makes you just another typical spineless hypocritical partisan hack lib.

Or perhaps the poster in question is just cynical like so many?

oh good the tard is here

Either address the issue or get outta the way.

 

[The T]

oh good the tard is here

Either address the issue or get outta the way.

read the thread dipshit....Doing more than your drunk ass

When you choose to addres the topic, and not make ME the topic? Let me know.

 

[rightwinger]

The exploration of partial privatization started before 2004. Are you suggesting that liberals were concerned that the market might not be viable enough 3 years later? As if that is a greater concern than the unsustainable package we have now?

Investment in the stock market is available through 401Ks and IRAs . For most Americans, Social Security is the only defined benefit plan available.

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

Wrong on so many levels.

And yet.......you can't name one

 

[The T]

read the thread dipshit....Doing more than your drunk ass

When you choose to addres the topic, and not make ME the topic? Let me know.

again, already did address the Op. You are not the OP, drunky

When you grow up a bit? Let me know.

 

[Flopper]

Serious cuts wont be made until the Republicans take the Senate and White House back. That's just the reality. Look to 2012. Nothing will get done until then.

The only presidents in the last 35 years who have been fiscally conservative are Carter and Clinton. Neither were Republicans

How often do we need to hear "trust us this time"??

Republicans campaign as fiscal conservatives but once in office they just can't resist pumping money into defense buildups and military ventures. Reagan entered office promising, to slash wasteful government spending. After 8 years in office he had piled up deficits to equal any president since WWII. George W. Bush entered office promising to slash wasteful government spending. After 8 years he leaves America with two wars, a recession and a string of deficits we haven't seen since the Reagan years.

With Democrats you know what to expect. They promise increased spending and they delivery. But in spike of there spending there has not been a recession begin during a Democratic administration in 50 years.

 

[rdean]

First a trillion from the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Then the recent second trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Now Republicans want to rape the middle class for two trillion to "balance the budget".

And they call this a "New Idea"?

This has always been their idea. What's funny is their base, falling farther and farther behind, still goes for it. Hilarious!

 

[rdean]

Serious cuts wont be made until the Republicans take the Senate and White House back. That's just the reality. Look to 2012. Nothing will get done until then.

The only presidents in the last 35 years who have been fiscally conservative are Carter and Clinton. Neither were Republicans

How often do we need to hear "trust us this time"??

Republicans campaign as fiscal conservatives but once in office they just can't resist pumping money into defense buildups and military ventures. Reagan entered office promising, to slash wasteful government spending. After 8 years in office he had piled up deficits to equal any president since WWII. George W. Bush entered office promising to slash wasteful government spending. After 8 years he leaves America with two wars, a recession and a string of deficits we haven't seen since the Reagan years.

With Democrats you know what to expect. They promise increased spending and they delivery. But in spike of there spending there has not been a recession begin during a Democratic administration in 50 years.

It's because Republicans are "scared". Of everything. It's part of a "circle the wagons" mentality.

 

[The T]

First a trillion from the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Then the recent second trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Now Republicans want to rape the middle class for two trillion to "balance the budget".

And they call this a "New Idea"?

This has always been their idea. What's funny is their base, falling farther and farther behind, still goes for it. Hilarious!

Why the class warfare deany?

 

[rightwinger]

And what were the Reptards braintrust recommendations for cutting the deficit?

1. Cut taxes which RAISES the defecit
2. Repeal healthcare which saves taxpayer money
3. Cancel NEA and NPR saving pennies

What a bunch of tards

 

[The T]

And what were the Reptards braintrust recommendations for cutting the deficit?

1. Cut taxes which RAISES the defecit
2. Repeal healthcare which saves taxpayer money
3. Cancel NEA and NPR saving pennies

What a bunch of tards

Wrong. SPENDING with no accountability or justification thinking you can just tax the hell outta people either in the open or hidden RAISES the deficit...and then you folks balk when the people tell you NO.

Try again.

 

[The T]

And one other littel tidbit? Gubmint needs to learn that it isn't their money to start with.

 

[Flopper]

It seems obvious that there are not going to be any sizable cuts coming out of Congress. House Republicans are so interested in making political statements in their legislation, they are not likely to produce a budget that will make it pass the Senate.

As alternative to the cut your most hated program approach, which will never make it through Congress, why not have an across the board spending cut of 5% coupled with a two year spending freeze. That will generate 100 billion in savings in 2011 and 2012. Coupling that with the CBO projection of on an additional revenue increase in 2011 of 330 billion and 240 billion in 2012, we have a deficit of 920 billion in 2011 and 680 billion in 2012. By doing that we will have cut deficit almost in half in just 2 years with no tax increase, maybe not enough for the far Right, but enough to keep the creditors away.

 

[rightwinger]

And what were the Reptards braintrust recommendations for cutting the deficit?

1. Cut taxes which RAISES the defecit
2. Repeal healthcare which saves taxpayer money
3. Cancel NEA and NPR saving pennies

What a bunch of tards

Wrong. SPENDING with no accountability or justification thinking you can just tax the hell outta people either in the open or hidden RAISES the deficit...and then you folks balk when the people tell you NO.

Try again.

Wrong again my friend

It is a two pronged monster we must slay.

We must have sufficient income= Taxes
And we must spend within our means

Cutting taxes means you must cut more spending just to make up for your tax cut

And we all know Republicans don't cut spending

 

[Provocateur]

Investment in the stock market is available through 401Ks and IRAs . For most Americans, Social Security is the only defined benefit plan available.

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

Wrong on so many levels.

And yet.......you can't name one

Quite wrong again. However, I was able to quickly assess that you are too partisan to have a reasoned dialog. Why use up part of my weekend trying to alter a perception/ideology that is so stringent?

The fact that you would type this:

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

...leads me to believe that you have zero desire to learn anything outside of your liberal bubble.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong on so many levels.

And yet.......you can't name one

Quite wrong again. However, I was able to quickly assess that you are too partisan to have a reasoned dialog. Why use up part of my weekend trying to alter a perception/ideology that is so stringent?

The fact that you would type this:

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

...leads me to believe that you have zero desire to learn anything outside of your liberal bubble.

I notice you have a problem staying on topic. Social security is still viable after 75 years. Minor adjustments will have to be made in retirement age, but that does not negate the success of the program.

Millions of Americans have relied and still rely on Social Security. Gutting the program would be catastrophic

 

[uscitizen]

And yet.......you can't name one

Quite wrong again. However, I was able to quickly assess that you are too partisan to have a reasoned dialog. Why use up part of my weekend trying to alter a perception/ideology that is so stringent?

The fact that you would type this:

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

...leads me to believe that you have zero desire to learn anything outside of your liberal bubble.

I notice you have a problem staying on topic. Social security is still viable after 75 years. Minor adjustments will have to be made in retirement age, but that does not negate the success of the program.

Millions of Americans have relied and still rely on Social Security. Gutting the program would be catastrophic

Yep it would hurt O'reilleys viewers badly.

 

[Provocateur]

And yet.......you can't name one

Quite wrong again. However, I was able to quickly assess that you are too partisan to have a reasoned dialog. Why use up part of my weekend trying to alter a perception/ideology that is so stringent?

The fact that you would type this:

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

...leads me to believe that you have zero desire to learn anything outside of your liberal bubble.

I notice you have a problem staying on topic. Social security is still viable after 75 years. Minor adjustments will have to be made in retirement age, but that does not negate the success of the program.

Millions of Americans have relied and still rely on Social Security. Gutting the program would be catastrophic

Having a gradual transition toward privatization is not "gutting" the program.

Social Security is not intended to be a retirement plan, btw. Just like health insurance is not intended to pay for simple doctor visits.

Why do liberals want the government to take care of every single aspect of life?

Become a big boy. You might enjoy it.

 

[Provocateur]

Quite wrong again. However, I was able to quickly assess that you are too partisan to have a reasoned dialog. Why use up part of my weekend trying to alter a perception/ideology that is so stringent?

The fact that you would type this:



...leads me to believe that you have zero desire to learn anything outside of your liberal bubble.

I notice you have a problem staying on topic. Social security is still viable after 75 years. Minor adjustments will have to be made in retirement age, but that does not negate the success of the program.

Millions of Americans have relied and still rely on Social Security. Gutting the program would be catastrophic

Yep it would hurt O'reilleys viewers badly.

Nice contribution to the thread. Did it take you a long time to come up with such an eloquent statement?

 

[jgarden]

The liberal Democratics love to pretend that the GOP is the Party of No.

But the GOP has come up with a proposal to cut 2.5 TRILLION dollars of spending. If we accept the rough figure that we are slightly over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt, then 2.5 TRILLION in cuts is pretty substantial (even spread out over 10 years). http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Spending_Reduction_Act--TWOPAGER.pdf

We can argue about the wisdom of WHICH programs, etc., would be cut. There will be claims that the GOP is seeking to kill off the poor and the aged. "Those heartless GOP bastards." Standard liberal Democrat Parody propaganda. (Of course, they will have to find a way to make those irresponsible claims in a civil fashion, now.) .....

United States National Debt: An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing

If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year.

The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84

http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

What is the Party of No Ideas (the Dims) proposing we should cut $$$

Behind all his pretentious rhetoric, the only real criticism that "Liability" can direct at the Obama Administration is that they're behaving like a bunch of Republicans!