Why do you want us bankrupt?

[Douger]

The insane opposition to cutting spending can only mean one thing. You guys want us bankrupt. Why? What on earth do you gain when the government has no money and can't pay our bills?

Or is someone honestly going to claim that we aren't spending ourselves into irrelevancy? Is there anyone who doesn't think our debt is a problem?

So you don't have any money for your military so Allah's KingDumb will become reality.

 

[G.T.]

Well, I've made it clear I haven't read it. So I'll go with what "I think".

House GOP; Let's cut $100 Billion
DNC; the GOP want to kill old people and children, we'll cut $6 Billion
Cons; that fukkin comical and has no basis in reality
DNC; the cons want to kill old people and kids.
Cons to House GOP; We need to cut something, the dims don't give a **** about the country as a whole.
House GOP <> DNC; diker, dicker, dicker, the cons want to kill granny and the kids by shutting down the government!, dicker, dicker, dicker. $38 B in cuts. [A complete waste of time]

Ryan; well shit, if the dems are just going to cut 62% our of any plan we put for, lets put forth a mega plan. Maybe we will still end up with some serious cuts. Cuz if we keep doing what we are doing we are gonig to keep getting what we got.

Dems; Ryan wants to kill granny by beating her to death with children!!


Now, explain to me why the DNC wants to crush the economy under a mountain of debt when the public is begging them to go the other way.

I see you view the entire thing 1-sided.

And as I said, it would appear as though Ryan's budget does not address care for the elderly, and so the "talking point" stands up vs. his bill, specifically, at least.

Ok

why do you want to destroy everything else? The dems plan on not cutting anything, thus making the debt larger and larger to the point our economy actually does collapse.

When that happens, there wil be no money for the government to care for granny.

Why do you and the dems want to kill granny and the country?

wanna get stoopid, lets get stewpud.

I disagree that they don't want to cut spending and also increase revenue. Next? Which is not an endorsement of either side, mind you, but I'm a Dem now for all intents and purposes to settle your bickership.

 

[hortysir]

I disagree that they don't want to cut spending and also increase revenue. Next? Which is not an endorsement of either side, mind you, but I'm a Dem now for all intents and purposes to settle your bickership.

Can you name a dem-proposed spending cut?

*edit*
And how much of a cut it is?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Don't get me wrong. The tools we used were high end. Many were usable only on certain gear b/c the shape was different.

We had a box of allen wrenches and a box of 5 sided ones b/c we hade a single system that had 5 sided allen bolts.

Why was it like that? to jack up the price and bring in money hoping we would lose wrenches.

Not all of our stuff was like that. Just enogh to make our tool bags heavy and fill our selves with testing gear that got used never.

Ok, that's just silly. I agree. I can't understand how that design even got approved.

What I was talking about is some of the Military issue stuff that gets out into civilian life. When one of my Uncles passed on he left behind his old military issue coat from the 50's. Not only was that thing still in top shape, but it's a better coat in terms of quality than any I've ever owned in my life, and I'm not exactly poor at this point in my life. I'm not complaining, in fact I'm glad that the average soldier was issued high quality gear. If we're sending them off to fight and die on our behalf, let's make sure they've got top quality stuff to get them home safe.

 

[G.T.]

I disagree that they don't want to cut spending and also increase revenue. Next? Which is not an endorsement of either side, mind you, but I'm a Dem now for all intents and purposes to settle your bickership.

Can you name a dem-proposed spending cut?

Read it over, from the source.

The Budget | The White House

 

[expat_panama]

We Are bankrupt. We need revenue, and tariffs.

We agree that our gov't needs more revenue.

As tariff rates have been cut over the years the amount of tariff revenue has soared. Before '03 revenue was falling and it increased since the '03 cuts. Fortunately we're not bankrupt, unless your 'we' excludes most Americans and their government.

Colossally stupid.

Yeah, it does look stupid at first glance but it becomes a numbers/money/facts thing that's hard to get into but harder to get around.

FWIW, click here for the figures on tariffs and click here for what I was talking about on cuts/revenue.

 

[Avatar4321]

The insane opposition to cutting spending can only mean one thing. You guys want us bankrupt. Why? What on earth do you gain when the government has no money and can't pay our bills?

Or is someone honestly going to claim that we aren't spending ourselves into irrelevancy? Is there anyone who doesn't think our debt is a problem?

I doubt anybody truly objects to cutting spending.

The partisan debate is where the cuts need to be made.

Where do YOU think cuts ought to be made?

EVERYWHERE

What is so dang difficult to understand about that? Yet you oppose any sort of cut in spending you don't like. You guys say you want cuts, but the second something you like gets cut, you start making excuses why they shouldn't be cut.

Who the heck cares whether the cuts are partisan. We freaking need the cuts. Cut whatever the heck we can get. And when the other party gets power, let them cut whatever the heck they can get.

Let's cut 1.5 Trillion this year instead of cutting for a 10 year budget. Let's eliminate any bueaucracy we don't need. and Please don't feed me this bullcrap that there aren't any we don't need.

Im so sick and tired of you guys making excuses why we should do nothing.

 

[hortysir]

I disagree that they don't want to cut spending and also increase revenue. Next? Which is not an endorsement of either side, mind you, but I'm a Dem now for all intents and purposes to settle your bickership.

Can you name a dem-proposed spending cut?

Read it over, from the source.

The Budget | The White House

For some reason the .pdf loaded sideways.....

But when I go to the summary tables I can't find a single category where the next year's funds are smaller than the previous year.
*shrug*

 

[G.T.]

The Deficit decreases from 1.645T to 1.101T.

And starting with page 6 on the pdf, you can see that your analysis was wrong.

From 2011 to 2012, pretty much most things show a decrease.