Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit

[B_J 2,752]

And that's just it. In 10 years, someone else will undo the cost savings to keep seniors happy, and we're back to square one.

Until someone grows a pair of balls big enough to tell TODAY's seniors to stuff it, we won't see any real cuts.

So, what we have is, on one hand, a plan that in the long term can reduce the deficit; however, it will probably never reach it's long term goals.

And on the other hand, no plan.

Nice.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And that's just it. In 10 years, someone else will undo the cost savings to keep seniors happy, and we're back to square one.

Until someone grows a pair of balls big enough to tell TODAY's seniors to stuff it, we won't see any real cuts.

Exactly. Likewise, no proposal to tackle the deficit that doesn't include significant defense spending reductions and doesn't raise revenues can be taken seriously. The size of the deficit dictates that everything needs to be on the table. Start with the Bush/Obama tax cut packages and raise that 4+ trillion dollars over the next decade starting in 2012.

[The Dude 206]

And that's just it. In 10 years, someone else will undo the cost savings to keep seniors happy, and we're back to square one.

Until someone grows a pair of balls big enough to tell TODAY's seniors to stuff it, we won't see any real cuts.

Effing old people.

At the end of the day, Obama is a hypocrite. We knew this already though.

ANYONE who votes to raise the debt ceiling, no matter who they are, is an enemy of the United States and their actions are treasonous against us all.

No one seems to give a damn about how dangerous the situation we are in right now really is.

If you didn't resort to histrionics, you might actually make a point. Raising the debt ceiling isn't a good idea, but to call it treason is laughable. You do yourself a disservice with these sorts of blathering comments.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, what we have is, on one hand, a plan that in the long term can reduce the deficit; however, it will probably never reach it's long term goals.

And on the other hand, no plan.

Nice.

Ryan's plan is not reducing the deficit. It's increasing the deficit in the first decade and builds on wishful thinking that it actually can reduce the deficit thereafter. Repealing PPACA, for example, will add 200 billion to the defict per the CBO. Ryan says it will save 1.4 trillion. How, he doesn't say. And then there's the laughable assumption that unemployment will somehow drop to a rate of 2.8% by 2021?

This is the kind of fuzzy math stuff that adds up to those gigantic savings. We've been there before when tax revenues were cut some 4 trillion dollars and a Medicare entitlement of over a trillion dollars was installed - neither of which would add to the deficit according to the perpetrators. And yet, here we are some 10 trillion dollars later just to this date...

[mawilson 2,133]

So, what we have is, on one hand, a plan that in the long term can reduce the deficit; however, it will probably never reach it's long term goals.

And on the other hand, no plan.

Nice.

That about sums it up.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

True. Besides, the CBO estimate actually says that the Ryan proposal actually increases the debt over current policy by 2022. So, not only does it not curb the defict and debt over the next 10 years, it makes it slightly worse. Long term? Well, anyone that believes that shifting an ever increasing burden of medical care to the ever increasing number of seniors - yes, that block of voters that will be ever more important to politicians as it makes up an ever larger part of the electorate - will actually stand, I've got a bridge to sell.

It sounds like you are in favor of an even more drastic budget. Ok, I am for that. I would even give up the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone if we could get an across the board budget reduction of 20%. Not just a few things cut but every single budget line cut 20%. Would you support that?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It sounds like you are in favor of an even more drastic budget. Ok, I am for that. I would even give up the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone if we could get an across the board budget reduction of 20%. Not just a few things cut but every single budget line cut 20%. Would you support that?

No, I wouldn't because that's a nonsense approach. There are budget line items that you can probably get rid of altogether - I'm thinking subsidies, corporate welfare, useless wars and such - while others may actually need a boost - I'm thinking infrastructure and human resource investments. And then there's a bunch of stuff where you can probably accomplish the same result with less funding. Whether the fluff in these budgets is 10% or 50%, I don't care. Axe it. It's simply not smart policy to take an across-the-board approach. That looks nice on a bumper sticker or the tea party protest sign but it just doesn't replace the hard work that is required to balance the budget while maintaining a strong economy and investing in tomorrow. Across the board cuts is really a lazy man's approach and it could - and almost certainly would - end up hurting more and likely make defcits worse by triggering adverse effects on the economy and unemployment rates. Look at Ireland - that draconian austerity shite didn't work out very well for them. Not only did they not close their budget gaps, they're now looking to the rest of the EU to get carried along. Look at the UK, similar story unfolding there. Austerity they said as the be-all, end-all and now their economy contracted while most of the EU nations continue to see fairly robust growth resulting in higher receipts and less unemployment.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

No, I wouldn't because that's a nonsense approach. There are budget line items that you can probably get rid of altogether - I'm thinking subsidies, corporate welfare, useless wars and such - while others may actually need a boost - I'm thinking infrastructure and human resource investments. And then there's a bunch of stuff where you can probably accomplish the same result with less funding. Whether the fluff in these budgets is 10% or 50%, I don't care. Axe it. It's simply not smart policy to take an across-the-board approach. That looks nice on a bumper sticker or the tea party protest sign but it just doesn't replace the hard work that is required to balance the budget while maintaining a strong economy and investing in tomorrow. Across the board cuts is really a lazy man's approach and it could - and almost certainly would - end up hurting more and likely make defcits worse by triggering adverse effects on the economy and unemployment rates. Look at Ireland - that draconian austerity shite didn't work out very well for them. Not only did they not close their budget gaps, they're now looking to the rest of the EU to get carried along. Look at the UK, similar story unfolding there. Austerity they said as the be-all, end-all and now their economy contracted while most of the EU nations continue to see fairly robust growth resulting in higher receipts and less unemployment.

That all sound really great, and I would support that. Until of course, it runs head long into reality. What you are suggesting is really the adult way of doing things. Unfortunatly we don't have adults running things in Washington. The minute we got into every single prodject with an eye to streamline and economize politics would kick in. Everyone would have a pet project that he would want to preserve or would try to make an argument that it needs more funding. With our system of government there would just be no way to do what you are suggesting regardles of how sound of an idea it is. What I have wanted all along is even more radical but equaly not going to happen. We have a lot of duplication and wasted effort in our laws, regulations and budgets. I have always thought it would be a good idea to start over from scratch on everything. Repeal every law and regulation. Shut down every agency and program. Then start over with the goal of doing everything once. I know it will never happen but it seems to me it would be the best way to cut out all the fat and favortism in the government.

However, knowing that it would never happen I would still like to see an across the board decrease in every budget. It would probibly be the only thing reality would allow.

[mawilson 2,133]

We need a Budget Czar.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Unfortunatly we don't have adults running things in Washington. The minute we got into every single prodject with an eye to streamline and economize politics would kick in. Everyone would have a pet project that he would want to preserve or would try to make an argument that it needs more funding.

That's the problem we have. Lobbies that are allowed to purchase legislation. Get rid of that and I'd think there would be no problem having that adult conversation with the American people. They're ready for it. The lobbies aren't. And that's the problem. The single biggest fear I have as we get into this budget fight is that we're going to sacrifice tomorrow for the sake of yesterday.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We need a Budget Czar.

Aye. Actually, we had a commission that, I think, on the balance came up with a decent blueprint. And the CBO listed about 100 suggestions on how to deal with the deficit. There's a lot of adult stuff out there - and I'm not talking about the porn - that can be used as a road map to fiscal sanity.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Aye. Actually, we had a commission that, I think, on the balance came up with a decent blueprint. And the CBO listed about 100 suggestions on how to deal with the deficit. There's a lot of adult stuff out there - and I'm not talking about the porn - that can be used as a road map to fiscal sanity.

Yep, a lot of it was duplicate spending that could have been cut without any cutting of services. Even that couldn't get passed. Yes, we should stop lobbies from both industry and labor. We should also return politics to what it was originally imagined to be. Regular people giving a few years for their country rather than politicians spending 50 years getting rich in Washington. I would like to see a few things. A balanced budget law or ammendment. Term limits on any national office of two per office with a maximum of 20 years total in public office. Get the career politicians and the lobbies out of the mix and we may have a chance.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Three pages on this thread and not one post mentioning the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq to the US tax payer. Every poster on this thread to date gets a big fat F.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Three pages on this thread and not one post mentioning the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq to the US tax payer. Every poster on this thread to date gets a big fat F.

That would be a big fat F for you for missing the reference to them in an earlier post of mine. Unless, of course, you feel these wars are in any way useful...

...There are budget line items that you can probably get rid of altogether - I'm thinking subsidies, corporate welfare, useless wars and such - ...