Rep. Paul Ryan unveils Republican budget with $6.2 trillion in cuts
o is going to blame republicans on the govt. shutdown. shut er down! o has no
plans of his own, always tells everyone else to come up with something. he'll be
busy now continuing his campaign run of the last two years. o has got to go.
only 1 year and 9 months left for the community organizer to return to chicago.
can't come soon enough.
The republicans are going to blame the democrats on the govt. shutdown. Shut it
down. Better hope the economy is not doing well, or it's 5 years and 9 months
to go. Better than the alternatives, who believe that change is bad, let's
"stay the course." Anyone remember that line? Guess what? Times
have changed, and we have a president trying to get us ahead of the game for the
future, but we have a bunch of old, rich reps who do not want change.
Part IIThe United States will hit the legal limit on its ability to
borrow no later than May 16, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said ramping
up pressure on Congress to act to avoid a debt default. The longer Congress
fails to act, the more we risk that investors here and around the world will
lose confidence in our ability to meet our commitments and our obligations,
Geithner said in a letter to congressional leaders. "Default by the United
States is unthinkable." Previously, the Treasury had forecast that the
$14.3 trillion statutory debt limit would be reached between April 15 and May
31. As of Friday, Treasury borrowing stood just $95 billion from the ceiling.
The debt-limit showdown comes as Congress struggles to complete a spending
package that would keep the government operating beyond Friday. As the
government nears the debt ceiling, the Treasury has authority to take certain
extraordinary measures to postpone the date the United States would default on
its obligations. However, those actions would be exhausted after about eight
weeks and there would be no headroom to borrow after July 8, Geithner said. I tell it like it is, because no one else will.
The democrats have become the party of no!Where is their solution?
So far they've offered to borrow more money and run up our debt. They have no
solution.Finally the republicans come up with a plan to actually cut
the debt, and the part of no (democrats) turn it down.Maybe if obama
took time and listened to the American people in the first place, instead of
calling them terrorists, then maybe, just maybe....
Good thing obama is more worried about getting elected than he is being a
leader. I wonder how many more wars he'll commit us to before his term is up.
And I really hope it is going to be up.There are definately better
candidates out there.The problem with the left, is that they only
understand bumper sticker language. Which is why passing these massive bills are
too complicated for them.The best way to talk to a left winger, is
by a couple of words on the bumper sticker.For example "2012
Not Soon Enough" They will understand it, as an attempt to oust their
annointed one. "Drill baby Drill" they immediately think of climate
change and evil oil spills and big business. "Hope" they assosciate
with the annointed one. "Change" again the annointed one. "Yes we
can" their first thought is food stamps, stealing from others that work,
and sitting on their lazy butts watching cable that we pay for.
@Liberal Ted: Boy, I hope you can back up that comment about Obama calling the
American people terrorists, and do so in context and not out of context. Point
us all to where we can find that quote in context!
Wow, the Obama haters are out in force. Boehner cannot control his own
delegation and the GOP cannot govern. If the tea party crowd gets its way,
America will have serious buyer's remorse. Imagine a party, the Republicans, who
deliberately demand a cut in revenue, then complain about the consequences. On
top of that, they call for cuts, but give tax breaks to the rich, bailouts for
the banks and corporations, and protect spending on special interest projects.
They don't represent the middle class, the 97% of us who don't make $250,000 or
more. The fox is in the hen house, and the hens are clucking with approval.
Re: xscribeNow why would the Republicans be in a position to blame
the democrats on the govt. shutdown? Don't the Democrats want a balanced
"Which is why passing these massive bills are too complicated for
them"Is writing a sentence too complicated for you? Irony?Don't whine about bumper sticker language when the first you cite will
certainly be used by the right and the second (drill baby drill) was taken hook
line and sinker. Palin (like her or not now) was adored by most of the right
during the last campaign and her popularity is all bumper sticker talk with no
substance. There is great potential for debate about politics,
policy, and other matters but the conversation usually goes towards the
stereotypical, shameful, and useless language typified in your last sentence.
'When Republicans were a Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture
(filibuster) filings. When President Clinton took office, with Republicans
remaining the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994. When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections,
cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008.' 'The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate' -
Ben Frumin and Jason Reif - Talking Points Memo - 01/27/10 *'How
the House GOP promise to cut $100b became $32b' - By Luke Russert - NBC -
02/03/11 *'Memories of 1995 haunt GOP as shutdown talk grows' - By
Charles Babington - AP - Published by DSNews - 02/20/11 'WASHINGTON Few
memories haunt Republicans more deeply than the 1995-96 partial shutdown of the
federal government, which helped President Bill Clinton reverse his falling
fortunes and recast House Republicans as stubborn partisans, not savvy
Speaker Boehner is chaging the rules in the middle of the negotiations.
According to reports, in their meeting this morning the Speaker told the
President and Harry Reid that he would not agree to any budget that would not
garner 218 Republican votes. He's not interested in getting the necessary votes
(218) unless they can all be Republicans. Bipartisanship is out the window in
his mind. There is a budget plan that will pass the House that is acceptable to
the Senate as well but it would require votes from both sides of the aisle in
the House and would likely NOT garner the full 218 votes needed from the
Republican side. But Speaker Boehner and his colleagues in the House aren't
interested in being responsible, they're just playing games with all our lives.
I am amazed at all the artisans on this board. Do you all really believe the GOP
is the answer? The same group that gave us massive government expansion, wars,
Patriot Act, and huge deficits? Obama is no good either...larger deficits, the
healthcare bill being passed without thought, etc. The liberal left and
conservative right are so busy complaining about each other, nothing can be done
anymore. I wish there were more moderates in Congress, but it seems the
extremists have hijacked both parties. Now, we have massive government stalemate
leading to a Russian/Argentinian-style currency collapse because the right is
too busy blaming Obama and the left too busy blaming Bush. It seems almost like
a couple arguing while the boat they are in is about to go over Niagara Falls...
@Rifleman: Well, let's just wait and see if they do or don't, if the government
does shut down, which I doubt it will. If it does, that's the best thing that
can happen, because then they will actually start to negotiate with each
other.And, yes, the democrats do want a balanced budget, just not
necessarily the way the republicans want to get there. And the opposite is most
likely true, which is why they are at a stalemate!
Boehner asnswers to the t-party. He can't be seen to comprimise with the evil O,
Palosi and Reed can he? To me-partiers that's like negotiating with terrorists.
R's are just so patriotic these days. Go ahead, shut the government
dowm. Shut off SS and MC payments first. We'll see the t-party crying for thier
A government shutdown?We can all dream can't we?As you
can see Reid and Biden lied saying a deal was imminent. That was nothing more
than a lie to put pressure on republicans to make them cave in to the Democrats
continued ridiculous spending.This amount of money being discussed
is the equivalent to a box of cereal in your next months groceries...yet
Democrats act like these cuts are actually difficult to make.We need
to cut TRILLIONS and yet the democrats act like 33 billion is serious.Use your brain people. We are on the road to bankruptcy with our currency
devaluing on a daily basis. Meanwhile Democrats think current spending our
cutting the eqivalent of a box of cereal is "too much".Seriously, do you need any more evidence that there plan for the USA is
financial ruin? They want economic chaos because then the government "has
to" implement all kinds of "controls" and if you know history
exactly none of them benefit you.Get rid of every Democrat of
Republican who does not support fiscal responsibility. Stop playing their petty
political games and get rid of any that won't to what it takes.
'We need to cut TRILLIONS...' - Anti Government | 2:32 p.m. *'Bush
Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt' - Posted by Mark Knoller -
CBSNews - 03/04/10 Line:'With no fanfare and little notice,
the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's
presidency.' I agree. And the calls for that,
should have been done sooner, than 25 months ago. *'Audit: US can't
account for $8.7B in Iraqi funds' - By Tarek El-tablawy - AP - Published by
DSNews - 07/27/10Line:'The funds are separate from the $53
billion allocated by Congress for rebuilding Iraq.'
Pagan,Hopefully you realize many of us were against Bush's spending too.
Pointing out Bush's mistakes does no good...many of us were screaming for the
spending to stop then too. Yes, the GOP is doing what we want...only because
they are in the minority and was the only chance they had of winning any
elections (using the spending cut platform). If they were in total control, they
would be just as bad. This is why making sure the parties are split across the
branches is a good thing.
Why doesn't BO DEMAND a daily meeting with Reid? Why just Boehner? The house
has already passed a budget bill, it's clown prince harry's senate controlled by
the deNOcrats that hasn't acted.Pagan,you ever get tired of
posting your comments about bush's debt just to have me - again - show how much
worse BO's debt is?Time it took Bush to accumulate $4 trillion in
debt - 96 months.Time it took BO to accumulate $4 trillion in debt - 26
months.Average Bush deficit - $545BAverage Bush deficit with
Republican congress - $470BAverage Bush deficit with Democrat congress -
$767BAverage BO deficit - $1.9 trillion OVER 3X as high as Bush!
@borisDon't forget the t-shirts handed out at a Palin rally that
simply said PALIN then under it simply stated Guns.Babies.Jesus. DMN Moderators - that is a fact, not inflammatory.
"I know how to fix our money problems. Keep spending lots of
money"barack hussein obama
To "Pagan | 2:53 p.m." you forget that while there was no fanfare for
Bush's $4 Trillion deficit over 8 years, there has been cheering for Obama's
$3.1 Trillion deficit in 2 years. You are one of the cheerleaders.If Bush's debt was so bad, why is Obama's massive debt good. Either debt is
good or it is bad. Liberals say that military spending is what brought us out
of WWII, yet now military spending is bad. Which way is it, is military
spending good or is it bad for the economy?
'Hopefully you realize many of us were against Bush's spending too.' -
unaffiliated_person | 3:10 p.m. It's hard to take that seriously
when Bush was elected... twice. lost in DC | 3:14
p.m., In case you didn't know Rifleman LOVES your graph. And yet,
you go, per month, failing to acknowledge that the presidental office goes in
4yr incriments. Obama has only served 2 years. Pouncing
on debt a bit early, aren't we? Also, you cite the amount Obama has
added to the debt in a 'bad' light... but fail to criticize his
Republican predecessor for doing the exact, same, thing. Ignoring
that Republicans have failed in their 'Promise to America' to cut $100 billion
from the budget... how can one claim Republicans 'work for the
little guy', when faced with 139 Filibusters in '07-08? To DOUBLE
the national debt as Bush did, Obama would have to add $10 trillion dollars to
the debt. To TRIPLE the debt as Ronald Regan did, Obama would have
to add $20 trillion to the national debt. The bar for national debt
has been set a bit too high, wouldn't you agree?
One last post about debt... National debt as a percentage of GDP is
the accepted method of comparison.Reagan: Increased --> 34% to
52%Bush I: Increased --> 52% to 65%Clinton: Decreased --> 65%
to 56%Bush II: Increased --> 56% to 82%Obama: Increased -->
82% to 97%Just the facts. Those numbers are published by the
treasury dept.Net republican increases: 57%Net democratic
increases: 6% Good day.
I'm a Republican, and Obama was right when he rejects GOP stopgap proposal, says
no more budget extensions. Good afternoon,If you're like me, you've got taxes on the brain this time of year, so I
wanted to remind you of two things.First, don't forget the tax
filing deadline this year is April 18, not April 15.Second, when you
are filing your taxes this year, you will benefit from $160 billion of tax
relief for middle-class families that President Obama secured this past December
-- in addition to extending unemployment insurance, the 2001 and 2003
middle-class tax cuts and other key provisions. If you are one of the nearly 160
million Americans benefitting from the payroll tax cut, which was in the same
package of middle-class tax relief, you are already seeing the additional
savings in your paycheck.We have put together a new tax cut
calculator on WhiteHouse.gov that will show you exactly what these tax cuts mean
for you and your family. We've also included a link to Recovery Act tax cuts you
may be eligible to claim on your 2010 taxes as you file this month.
hold on, it was just a short few days ago I remember conservatives going on and
on about not being afraid of a government shut down...now that Obama has called
your bluff your upset?
To "Pagan | 3:44 p.m." lets look at things in terms of who actually
controlls congress. Typically the largest increases in debt occur when
Democrats control both houses of Congress.From 1981 to 1987 control
was split and debt went up by 17.9%GDPFrom 1987 to 1995 Democrats
controlled congress, and the debt rose by 17% GDPFrom 1995 to 2001
Republicans controlled congress and the debt decreased by 10.6% GDP.2001
to 2003 it was split and the debt increased by 5.2% GDPFrom 2003 to 2007
Republicans controlled congress and the debt increased by 2.8% GDP.From
2007 to 2011, Democrats controlled congress, and the debt increased by 29.9%
GDP.Mixed control caused 23.1% increaseRepublican control
caused a 5.4% decreaseDemocrat control caused a 46% increaseIt
appears that when Democrats control the purse strings, debt soars. Split
congresses go with Democrats, and Republicans either have small increases or
decrease the debt compared to GDP.However, you should remember that
the debt has always increased since 1969. The only decreases in debt as a %GDP
are due to GDP growing faster than debt.
Tax religionTax marriageTax childrenPoof. No more
Re: CHS 85 | 3:30 p.m. April 5, 2011When a person can't dispute the
facts their only option is to change the subject. I'm a little confused however
about what t-shirts handed out at a Sarah Palin rally have to do with our
massive national debt. I suppose, in theory, that sooner or later the debt will
get so large we won't be able to pay the interest.Too bad we don't
have a surplus that would grow us some interest income.
"we cannot have our agencies making plans on a two week budget." This
comming from a congress and a "dude" that didn't even have a budget
last year. Spend, spend, spend,...weeeeeee!
Obama said, "We are now at the point where there is no excuse to extend
this further." What a JOKE! And where was the budget for last year? The
whole lot of them should be sent home for dereliction of duty in the 2012
I'm glad that Obama isn't running my home budget. Finally, Mr. Ryan is talking
common sense, responsible spending, without yanking the carpet out from under
the elderly and needy, despite copious waste in both programs. Again, get rid
of Federal interference with programs that should be run at a State level. The
Feds waste so much of our tax dollars!!
Who is president? Pagan loves to bring up Bush. Bush has been out of the White
House for 2 years. Do you deny that the US is in fiscal trouble? We are
dependent upon foreign investors to keep us solvent. Is this a position of
strength. Yes, Bush and every president for the past 30 years have
operated this way. So shall we keep on the current course? Economists will
tell you that when a nation's debt value reaches 80% of their GDP, that nation
will collapse. Where are we now? The US is at approximately 68%. We are just
12% from collapse? Have you looked ahead at our unfunded mandates? Do you
understand that if our current government spending continues, without change,
that our government could collapse?Pagan, grow up. Stop whining
about "Bush spent this" or "Bush did that". What are WE, as
a nation, doing NOW? What needs to be done?Economists categorically
state that our government must reduce their spending levels. This is what
Republicans are attempting to do. Meanwhile, Dems are the party of
"No". No solutions, no change, no leadership.
This is entirely the republicans fault. Democrats have compromised all the way
to what Boehner was originally asking for. But now he wants to shift the
goalposts because of tea-party pressure. Well tough... obama has that card to
play ("we offered exactly what they asked for") so go ahead and shut
down the gov't. It'll be all the republicans fault for refusing to compromise
(when compromising is "getting what you originally asked for") and
maybe then we can retake the house.
"Finally, Mr. Ryan is talking common sense, responsible spending, without
yanking the carpet out from under the elderly and needy"How is
completely eliminating medicare (hint: those subsidies are way less than private
insurance for old people would cost, otherwise he wouldn't have deficit
reductions) and severely reducing medicaid so that he can give tax cuts for the
rich NOT that?
There is an election comming, so the House can shut the Dems down cold. This is
payback for the way he forced the medicare bill. If Obama looks bad it will be
a tough election for him.
Obama hasn't looked better. Republican Governors in swing states are riling up
the democratic base and making independents disillusioned. Republican
presidential candidates will have to bow down to the tea party extremists and
have to move so far right that they'll be completely unelectable (see: Angle,
Miller, O'Donnell). Obama has moved so far on this budget thing that democrats
are willing to cut as much as Boehner originally asked for. If there's a
shutdown, it'll be the Republicans fault and they'll look bad to everyone except
the tea party.
I'm sure Rep. Ryan is a great person who has great intentions; however I must
know, does anyone out there know his opinion on the cost of war and whether he
supports us being in two and a half wars? Or what his general opinion of war
is? He deserves a gold medal for his concern on budgets, but does he know it
is the 21st century?
Those of you who are 55+ in age, don't be fooled into thinking Ryan is going to
hold you harmless. This is divide and conquer. He's trashed the under 55
crowd, their elders will be next. This is nothing more than top down rationing
of health care, i.e. top down death panels if you will.
Mr. Obama: Where were you all last year when, with a Democratic Congress, both
houses, you didn't even provide enough leadership to pass a budget at all.
"Wolf, wolf, wolf....oh my gosh, the sky is falling....Wolf, wolf, wolf.
Has anybody seriously wondered why a government that can print its money has to
ever go into debt? When the government borrows a billion dollars it has to be
payed back with interest. What happens when the government needs a billion
dollars again. It borrows it. Hows does it benefit the economy if
the government spends a billion dollars and then has to suck that money right
out of the economy with interest to pay it back?A better solution
would be to create the money, spend the money into the economy and let the money
move through the economy to create jobs and wealth. No taxes and no recessions.
What a noble idea.
Unfortunately, just printing money without anything to back it up creates
hyperinflation, something Hitler intended to do with counterfeit currencies by
flooding various national markets. Fortunately, his evil crusade toppled before
he could complete the task.In my mind, only a fool would look to the cause
of a dilemma for the solution to the dilemma, i.e. the Feds and the mess they've
created over the years. And we just keep drinking their kool-aid.
Gallup put the congressional job approval rating at 18% last week. I wonder
what it is this week?
The Republican Congressional majority failed to pass a finished budget in three
years: 1998, 2004 and 2006.The Senate and the House are supposed to
pass resolutions in the spring that outline the framework for future bills that
address spending, taxation and other fiscal policy items. This budget represents
a plan for allocating revenues and expenditures for the coming fiscal year, as
well as for the next four fiscal years in more general terms. Each chamber is
supposed to pass a version of the resolution, and if the two versions differ,
then the chambers jointly hammer out a compromise and pass it.The
budget process is distinct from the series of appropriations, or spending, bills
that actually allocate money for specific purposes. Unlike the appropriations
bills, the budget resolution doesn't carry the force of law. The budget
resolution is not signed by the president. If a budget resolution does not pass,
it increases the likelihood of a logjam of appropriations bills in the fall and
winter and decreases the chance that controversial tax bills will pass the
@ Peter. I guess i should explain what I mean better. I will use the 800 billion
dollar stimulus for example. Instead of borrowing the money and spending into
into the economy the government could simply create the money and spend into the
economy. What are the differences and what is the outcome.Obviously
when someone borrows money they have to pay it back with interest. So what was
the net effect of the stimulus on the economy. It was zero or negative. It
created jobs but since money has to be sucked out of the economy to pay it back,
it only causes temporary gains. 800 billion minus 800 billion plus interest
equals a shortage of money in the economy.Well duh right? What if
the government just printed the money and spent into the economy? Would it cause
inflation? No. If there are 12 million people out of work there is too little
money chasing goods and services. If the government just created the money and
spent it into the economy the net effect would be 800 billion circling in the
economy interest and debt free. No taxes would be needed to pay for it.
Let's keep it civil.
We are not so much trying to cut spending as to cut a thin slice off of our
mountain of borrowing. A very thin slice.
I know that it is a sign of great maturity to threaten to shut down the greatest
nation on the face of the earth. It reeks of maturity. How about moving on,
planning, negotiating, thinking, ahem, thinking, and then acting? To just kick,
slug, bite, chew, and spit because you are not liking certain programs is a sign
of maturity? Leadership? Please.Thank goodness there
is the senate and the President of the United States.
The Drudge Report just came out with findings that TARP and all this
"stimulus" money has been given to foreign banks and to unions, unions
that fund democratic campaigns that keep democrats in office to keep funding the
unions that...and we just passively look away, pretending to believe that this
money is being used for the people of this nation. Obama is redistributing the
wealth, but not to poor Americans. Such corruption must end, and it's up to we
the people to end it.
Re: Gentile | 6:35 a.m. April 6, 2011 Is there some magical maximum
amount of debt we can afford to pay interest on? What happens when
we inevitably exceed that maximum limit?Michael Jackson is the one
who taught us if you spend more than you bring in sooner or later it will catch
up with you.