Republicans Don't Care About National Debt

Interesting maneuvering by President Obama has smoked the Republicans out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/us...10debt.html?hp

Even the Speaker, the most sensible Republican leader around (as best I can tell), has not made it clear that they really don't care about the national debt. They put a higher priority on cutting Federal spending than on reducing the debt.

I think most swing voters think that trying to rein in the deficit without increased revenue is a fool's errand. And swing voters don't pay enough attention to politics to have realized that this was never about debt to Republicans. It was always about crippling the ability of the government to do it's job. But now anyone can see that. Interesting.

I think this will come back to hurt Republicans quite a bit in the mid-term elections. Obama can make it worse for the Republicans if he comes forward now with a Democratic proposal to cut $4 - 5 trillion off the budget via cuts and revenues and forces a vote on it in the Senate. My guess is that's too much confrontation for him (unfortunately).

Along these same lines, apparently the Senate Democratic Caucus is now ready to release the budget plan that the six Democratic members of the Senate Budget Committee worked out six months ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...S4H_story.html

Something that I think is long overdue.

Darn it Tush you beat me to it- I am literally drooling to hear Whirlaway's response. Let's see Whirlaway and other right wing has been bitching for months that the govt is spending too much and that Obama is not serious enough about cutting the defecit- Obama puts a 4 trillion deficit on the table- but oh no that's too much $$$ for the GOP and Boehner or rather Boehner and the GOP showed there true colors because no doubt Obama's 4 trillion cut would affect some programs of the poor and middle class but gosh the Republicans just couldn't tolerate raising taxes on the wealthy- oh no- they will reduce the deficit as long as the rich keep all there money and as long as the wealthy get a tax break- LMFAO.
Thank you Boehner because making decision like this shows the true colors of the GOP and shows that they are not serious about this issue and most of all it assures that Independents like me will be casting their vote in 2012 for Obama.
Whirlway I would love to hear your response.

Whirlway I would love to hear your response. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Here it is...

"Tax breaks for the rich , job creators will raise tax revenues. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.'' bla bla bla




The Repub's are going to get waxed over this issue. My dad , who is conservative as they come knows you have to raise taxes. He thinks the Tea Folks are fucn up big time because they will not compromise. He called it in 2008 when he said McCain blew it with Sara Palin. He wants to vote for the GOP but he can't because the party has vtaken to far right a turn.

Poor speaker Bohner. He knows what a great deal there was to be had and he can not whip his party into shape.

I haven't looked at the Obama details; but I bet most of the "spending cuts" are a combination of slower growth rates in spending (not a cut) and occur in the out years. The tax increases (err revenue enhancements) likely aren't.....another bait and switch, just like Regan and Bush I were suckered into. Tip O'Neil promised Regan $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases..Guess what peanut gallery, we got the tax increases and never got the cuts !....Same with Bush I....And don't forget the Regan amensty program in which the Democrats promised border security and enforcements in exchange for amenesty.....well, we got the illegals being granted amnesty but never got the promised border security.

I hope the Republicans aren't dumb enough to fall for this same B&S routine again.

But they could be just that dumb !

If they fall for this one; they will lose the support of the base in the primary and election run up !

And likely lose more seats to the Tea Party energized who will throw out the moderates....probably saving Obama's job for a 2nd term, but making it nearly impossible for him to govern with a coalition....

It will be interesting to see how this plays out !

Darn it Tush you beat me to it- I am literally drooling to hear Whirlaway's response. Let's see Whirlaway and other right wing has been bitching for months that the govt is spending too much and that Obama is not serious enough about cutting the defecit- Obama puts a 4 trillion deficit on the table- but oh no that's too much $$$ for the GOP and Boehner or rather Boehner and the GOP showed there true colors because no doubt Obama's 4 trillion cut would affect some programs of the poor and middle class but gosh the Republicans just couldn't tolerate raising taxes on the wealthy- oh no- they will reduce the deficit as long as the rich keep all there money and as long as the wealthy get a tax break- LMFAO.
Thank you Boehner because making decision like this shows the true colors of the GOP and shows that they are not serious about this issue and most of all it assures that Independents like me will be casting their vote in 2012 for Obama.
Whirlway I would love to hear your response. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I haven't looked at the Obama details; but I bet most of the "spending cuts" are a combination of slower growth rates in spending (not a cut) and occur in the out years. The tax increases (err revenue enhancements) likely aren't.....another bait and switch, just like Regan and Bush I were suckered into. Tip O'Neil promised Regan $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases..Guess what peanut gallery, we got the tax increases and never got the cuts !....Same with Bush I....And don't forget the Regan amensty program in which the Democrats promised border security and enforcements in exchange for amenesty.....well, we got the illegals being granted amnesty but never got the promised border security.

I hope the Republicans aren't dumb enough to fall for this same B&S routine again.

But they could be just that dumb !

If they fall for this one; they will lose the support of the base in the primary and election run up !

And likely lose more seats to the Tea Party energized who will throw out the moderates....probably saving Obama's job for a 2nd term, but making it nearly impossible for him to govern with a coalition....

It will be interesting to see how this plays out ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Whirl I am going to be fair and give you time to look at Obama's detail, but to be honest Boehner just fucked up major and will lose a lot of Independent voters. As I told you Whirl the only way Obama loses if a candidate he faces is in the middle- he's not going to lose to a true conservative or some right wing politician- it's going to have to be a candidate who will pull a lot of independents and disgruntled DEMS and making bullshit choices like Boehner just made won't work. Boehner did this only to appeal to the Tea party- who arent going to vote for Obama anyways- it was a bad decision and it shows the GOP is not willing to fix this economy- there's a HUGE difference between cutting 2 trillion and cutting 4 trillion- also in the early talks didn't Obama offer less cuts and the Republicans said they wanted more cuts around the 4 trillion mark- and now he cuts 4 trillion and they are not satisfied?

Republicans prove once again that they're only concerned about tax cuts for rich people. One would think that a group that professed to be interested in cutting spending would have loved to see a $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction package that consisted primarily of spending reductions. But no. And why? Because ANY tax increase trumps how ever much spending reduction there is in a deficit reduction package. Why? Because Republicans only care about low taxes for the rich. They've ALREADY declared a class war.

Spending on the things that Republicans want to cut isn't the problem. This is.

I already pay a shit load of taxes, and when all of this is over, I will be paying even more.

Inspires me to work even harder.

[QUOTE=TexTushHog;1458593 They put a higher priority on cutting Federal spending than on reducing the debt.
+++++++++++++++++++
The only way to reduce the debt is to quit spending. When you're in a hole, stop digging! Most families have already reached their limits with this imperial tax and spend crap. The "let them eat cake" attitude is malign.


I think most swing voters think that trying to rein in the deficit without increased revenue is a fool's errand.
++++++++++++++++++++
Wrong. The average voter recognizes that the ruling class will always spend every dime we allow them, and seek more.


It was always about crippling the ability of the government to do it's job. But now anyone can see that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well duh. Government isn't the solution, it's the problem. Don't just cripple it, do away with the majority of those bloated parasitic agencies.


I think this will come back to hurt Republicans quite a bit in the mid-term elections.
++++++++++++
Well, we don't have to guess. Time will tell.

It appears that Boehner may have just boxed himself into a corner of which there is no easy way out!

There's a whole lot more fucking up for both sides to do before election time. What does Texas do to create jobs? Somebody tell Mr. President to get rid of his hardon for us and try what works. 200 doctors a month moving to Texas because of tort reform $750,000 max suit. I bet alot of hookers are headed this way too. Should see rates dropping any day now. Yep....soon...almost...shortly ....well maybe not.

200 doctors a month moving to Texas because of tort reform $750,000 max suit. Originally Posted by Waitt

That's not the law in Texas. Cap is on non-economic loss and it's $250,000. But there is no cap on lost wages, medical bills, etc. You know, that type of damages that Republicans with big jobs sustain. They'll never cap their own recovery.

Instead, they cap suits by homemakers, kids, and the elderly -- those folks who only have non-economic losses.

As for what we did to avoid the worst of the recession, we didn't have a big run up in housing prices because no one really wants to move here. Texas had very little population growth compared to the places that had big housing run ups -- Las Vegas, Phoenix, New York City, Miami, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. If we had the sort of population gains that those places had in the same time frame, we'd have the same issues.

Jesus, you guys are Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football. The Dems propose $4T in deficit reduction over 10 years, and here some of you are, pissing down your legs with excitement.

$4T over 10 years. So we are talking roughly $400B in deficit reduction per year. Ok. That's a reduction. Sort of. A little bit. Almost, maybe, but not really.

Bush's final budget, one of his highest, was $800B in deficit. Our current deficit is $1.5T. A $400B reduction would bring the deficit down to a mere $300B INCREASE over Bush's final budget. This, from the President who promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

So where exactly is the reduction? This is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Furthermore, this joke of a 'deficit reduction' plan also entails raising taxes on the rich. Actual spending cuts only amount to about $2T over 10 years, or $200B per year.

This spending proposal would reduce our current deficit by about 30%. It also uses up your trump card and would involve raising taxes on the rich. Congress has demonstrated repeatedly that even under threat of a gov't shutdown, and the looming specter of defaulting on our loans, they still can't come up with meaningful spending reductions.

In light of those facts, my question for the board is this: How do you plan to eliminate the remaining 70% of the deficit? You can't raise taxes since you would be doing that already if this proposal is adopted. You also would not have the leverage of either a gov't shutdown or the debt ceiling to force Congress to take spending reductions seriously. So someone please tell me how we get to a balanced budget. And when everyone draws a blank, please give a detailed explanation as to why this proposal is anything but a sad, worn out joke played upon taxpayers.

In the immortal words of Charlie Brown "Oh good grief".

I agree with SOTF. The independent voters(like myself) are sharp enough to see things as they REALLY are. Propaganda doesn't work on us. I think that both parties are going to get shredded by independent voters in future elections. Many incumbents will be gone.