"You get nothing. I get that for free."


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

More fun on the fiscal cliff front:

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free."

There will be no deal with that kind of mentality.

Drink the dregs, my Obama-voting friends. Drink. The. Dregs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing I drink has dregs. No koolaid either. We, liberals, have told the president that we dont want him to back down and give everything to get a deal. He is simply doing what we asked. At one point he started to compromise but since conservatives dont know the meaning of that word it has never worked before so we told him no deal. Dont do it. Let the conservatives learn what compromise means since it doesnt seem to be in their vocabulary. They back the super rich so let them feel the pain this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that for the most part, liberals are ruled by how they feel about things. Conservatives are ruled by how they think about things. Too bad you can't balance a budget with feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing I drink has dregs. No koolaid either. We, liberals, have told the president that we dont want him to back down and give everything to get a deal. He is simply doing what we asked. At one point he started to compromise but since conservatives dont know the meaning of that word it has never worked before so we told him no deal. Dont do it. Let the conservatives learn what compromise means since it doesnt seem to be in their vocabulary. They back the super rich so let them feel the pain this time around.

We are 16 trillion in debt.

Giving Obama his tax hikes represents 1/2 of 1% of the national debt.

The national debt now exceeds the GDP.

Nice, you liberals want the president to not back down on entitlements.

You know what, we libertarians wish he didn't have to either, cuts will hurt and all of us will feel them in some way or another.

But the fact is our debt is not sustainable and we are selling our country and our childrens future to foreign companies and countries - that's what it means when they buy your debt, just like a bank - that debt is backed by hard assets.

This class warfare mantra of throw the rich under the bus has been played before and it just doesn't work. Sure the rich come down a bit but the middle class drops into the poor and the poor suffer the worst - who are the ones currently exploited to push this agenda.

When someone tells you something is free, they are lying to you and usually trying to sell you something.

Edited by skippy740
moderator edited
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was the last Republican President to balance the US budget - Ask.com

The National Memo » The Big Lie of the Day: Republicans Balance Federal Budgets

Here's an interesting take on balancing the budge that might give some food for thought.The Cost of Balanced Budgets and a Longer View on Presidents and Jobs From Ike To 2012

The point is to question Eowyn's premise that conservatives are driven by mind and liberals by heart. I might agree conservatives completely ignore their hearts but only if I am really ticked off at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was the last Republican President to balance the US budget - Ask.com

The National Memo » The Big Lie of the Day: Republicans Balance Federal Budgets

Here's an interesting take on balancing the budge that might give some food for thought.The Cost of Balanced Budgets and a Longer View on Presidents and Jobs From Ike To 2012

The point is to question Eowyn's premise that conservatives are driven by mind and liberals by heart. I might agree conservatives completely ignore their hearts but only if I am really ticked off at them.

Bush put us in a situation where we have violated the sovereignty of other nations.

He passed the Patriot Act, which pretty much eliminates our 4th Amendment Rights.

He doubled the deficit with his out of control spending, primarily on the military.

This does not change anything I said, or excuse Obama from what he has done or is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush put us in a situation where we have violated the sovereignty of other nations.

He passed the Patriot Act, which pretty much eliminates our 4th Amendment Rights.

He doubled the deficit with his out of control spending, primarily on the military.

This does not change anything I said, or excuse Obama from what he has done or is doing.

hmmm... ok? Not sure where that came out of those links but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, no one is really talking about balancing the budget. The fight seems to be about President Obama wanting to raise taxes on the rich vs. Republicans wanting to cut some entitlements. Both sides are looking for bones to throw out their constituents--neither seems serious about deficit reduction or budget-balancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one party has been in control of the federal government long enough to make a truly measurable impact.

At the state level however, many states have been strongly republican for a long time while others have been strongly democrat for a long time. The strongly republican states, by far, have less debt per capita than the strongly democrat states.

This discussion will lead to nowhere and I don't know why I'm even bothering to be honest, I guess I wanted to get a word in before the giant lock gets put on by the mods.

Edited by jerome1232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush put us in a situation where we have violated the sovereignty of other nations.

He passed the Patriot Act, which pretty much eliminates our 4th Amendment Rights.

He doubled the deficit with his out of control spending, primarily on the military.

This does not change anything I said, or excuse Obama from what he has done or is doing.

Bush was the most socialistic president we've had up until Obama. Anyone who thinks Bush was a conservative needs to start looking at what conservative actually means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anne, your et tu argument collapses not only because it is a logical fallacy per se, but because it is utterly betrayed by the math. Look at the actual figures of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II's deficits versus Obama's. As a parent, you should know very well that just because Ronnie and Georgie got their GI Joes does not mean you have to give Barry his real, live pony.

Incidentally: Boehner did offer $800 billion in tax hikes, and that was after he suggested eliminating specific deductions that would have raised about half that amount. That's what precipitated the conversation in the OP.

The President isn't interested in compromise. In fact, his aides have openly said they're out to deny the House its constitutionally-sanctioned role of setting the debt limit. Meanwhile, Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) inadvertently tipped your hand on NPR two weeks ago: he said it would be preferable to go over the cliff now, let the Republicans take the fall for it, and re-approach the issue next year. The Democrats in Washington would put us over the cliff - and drive the country into recession - just to eke out a tax increase over people making between $250K (President's proposal) and $1 million (Boehner's proposal) that would only raise about $80 billion per year - less than one tenth of our annual deficit - and avoid tackling the structural problems that got us into this mess in the first place.

Math. It's why you - and I - lose, even if the President wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Anne, your et tu argument collapses not only because it is a logical fallacy per se, but because it is utterly betrayed by the math. Look at the actual figures of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II's deficits versus Obama's. As a parent, you should know very well that just because Ronnie and Georgie got their GI Joes does not mean you have to give Barry his real, live pony.

Incidentally: Boehner did offer $800 billion in tax hikes, and that was after he suggested eliminating specific deductions that would have raised about half that amount. That's what precipitated the conversation in the OP.

The President isn't interested in compromise. In fact, his aides have openly said they're out to deny the House its constitutionally-sanctioned role of setting the debt limit. Meanwhile, Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) inadvertently tipped your hand on NPR two weeks ago: he said it would be preferable to go over the cliff now, let the Republicans take the fall for it, and re-approach the issue next year. The Democrats in Washington would put us over the cliff - and drive the country into recession - just to eke out a tax increase over people making between $250K (President's proposal) and $1 million (Boehner's proposal) that would only raise about $80 billion per year - less than one tenth of our annual deficit - and avoid tackling the structural problems that got us into this mess in the first place.

Math. It's why you - and I - lose, even if the President wins.

Link to comment

Nothing I drink has dregs. No koolaid either. We, liberals, have told the president that we dont want him to back down and give everything to get a deal. He is simply doing what we asked. At one point he started to compromise but since conservatives dont know the meaning of that word it has never worked before so we told him no deal. Dont do it. Let the conservatives learn what compromise means since it doesnt seem to be in their vocabulary. They back the super rich so let them feel the pain this time around.

You mean compromise...like the Health Care Bill? Funny, how the only solution to fiscal sanity for liberals is taking more from the "rich" so called. The "rich" are so demonized...yet, they pay for everything. Defense, entitlements and even Obama Care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate how divided we as a coutry have become. We all need to wake up and realize that AMERICA is doomed if a portion of the citizenry refuse to work because it is easier to go on the government dole. If you had adult children and several decided "hey, it is much easier for mom and dad to pay my way through the world" rather than them standing up on their own two feet. I am not advocating getting rid of all entitlments but I am advocating that we stop imprisoning generations of people with the "I deserve this" mentality. Look at how every other great nation that has gone to wreck and ruin got there.... pride and lack of self discipline. Let's stop talking democrat and republican and start thinking about what is best for America.

As for the class warfare that is happening now I am ashamed of people for looking with envy and jealousy on people who have more than them. SO WHAT!!!!! President Benson warned us about pride and told us the root cause of it was enmity. That is what I see as class warfare now. Enmity toward those who have more is a sin. They have more but I have the Gospel of Jesus Christ so I have everything I need. No one forces me to pay tithing or fast offering.. I do that of my own free will. If my meager contribution can help someone in need then so be it. Do not force me to pay for something I do not want because you feel it is the "right thing to do".

Rant over :)

Mags

Edited by MsMagnolia
forgot something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It very well could be volgadon :) I look at it this way. Our Heavenly Father does not reighn by compulsion but gives us our agency. It fact compulsion is the exact opposite of the plan of salvation. The only time my child really gets upset with a situation is when I try to take away his agency. Why does this happen? Because we all fought a war in heaven to retain our agency. It is that important. So when our government tries to take away my agency I tend to get a little bit like my toddler and get mad.

Mags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I would add:

Balancing the budget in a recession or a war is NOT a good idea. There are times when you have to spend more than you make in a 2-year period of time. For example - if you have to balance your household budget every 2 years, you will probably never own a house or a car unless your parents paid for it. Because, most of us have to put those on a loan against our future earnings of over 2 years. This works the same way in government.

In a recession, with a jobless rate of over 7%, your revenue is down the crapper. If you balance the budget then, you will have to get rid of 70% of your government expenses which would cripple your government even if you get rid of 100% of your entitlements.

So, the only time that a budget should be balanced is when you're not fighting a war and when you're not in a recession. A war requires that you spend more than your regular household budget (just like when you lose your house to Hurricane Sandy, you have to go spend more than your regular budget to rebuild it). A recession requires that you spend more than your revenue (like when you lose your job and have to take a job cutting your neighbor's yard for $20/week, you will have to spend more than you make just to eat). By the way, that's why you have to be very careful about "Balance Budget Amendments".

And here's another fact. The President doesn't balance the budget. Congress does. He just approves it. So when you're talking about balancing the budget you have to talk about who has majority in Congress and not just who the President was at that time.

So, which administration had balanced budgets? NOBODY SINCE EISENHOWER. That's 1950's folks!

So you say... Clinton balanced the budget (which is kinda funny when they try to attribute this to Clinton - if anything, Newt Gingrich balanced the budget and got Clinton to agree to it). But, if you look at the ACTUAL NUMBERS from the US Treasury there is not a single year between 1994 through 2002 that you have the US Debt go down or stay the same instead of up. But... yes, in 2000 - smack dab in the middle of Gingrich and Clinton - you got a deficit of only $17M. Which, I guess for the experts at fuzzy math is a "balanced budget". And, what's worse... people keep saying - Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus. Uhm. Where?

Bush was the President with a Republican Congress when the internet bubble burst which was followed up by 9/11. You don't balance a budget when you got these things going on - this is "your house is wiped out by Hurricane Sandy" time.

So yeah, arguing over who balanced the budget - Republicans or Democrats - after Eisenhower is a stupid argument. Nobody did. And Eisenhower was a Republican with a Democrat Congress.

Now, there has not been a single time since 1957 that the US government ran on a surplus instead of a deficit. So, your National Debt is going up and up and up every single year. Yes, Bush doubled Clinton's deficits. And Obama followed up by tripling Bush's.

So yeah, Democrats and Republicans - you can argue over which party did what. BOTH OF YOU are the culprits. You have 2 sides to a budget - Revenue and Expenses. Republicans do not want to raise revenue by raising taxes. Democrats do not want to reduce expenses by cutting entitlements. This talk about "Republicans don't compromise" and "Democrats don't compromise" is all KOOL-AID STUPIDITY. FACT: Obama had a Democrat Congress in his first 2 years of his Presidency - record deficits. In 2011, Boehner compromised on revenue even against his party's recommendation. Not a single Democrat in the Senate (they held majority there) compromised on expenses and STILL they rejected Boehner's budget.

So please. This is not a Republican/Democrat problem like you're watching Heat versus Lakers, ok? YOU HAVE A REALLY BIG PROBLEM HERE. Trillions in defecits worth of problems. The End of American sovereignty is at stake. Because, when you don't have money to fund your military, you can't fight invaders. Period. And what do I care - a Filipino? Well, we have our eggs in your stupid basket. We made an agreement that we will support you in the UN and trade agreements if you provide the Philippines protection against North Korea/China/Russia and all those terrorists who like blowing us up. You can't do that if you don't have money for your military.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you can when you realize the only time the President had power to put forward his goals was about 56 days in the first year.

So you're telling me that if we had a Republican president with a Republican senate who utterly failed to lead the nation in accomplishing his goals, that it would be the Democrats' fault?

Obama promised an unprecedented era of bipartisan cooperation. Instead, he has made it clear he will not compromise on anything important to his Republican fellow leaders. He considers Republicans, both leaders and voters, to be his enemies, and he treats them -- us -- as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share