Republicans against debt...but not really...

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

hmm the stimulus plan...the one that was 40% tax breaks? Also there is something you need to understand...there is a difference between a one time or short term spending ...to get the econ going again...and long term tax cuts raise debt yearly forever until ended...Also I did take issue with parts of it, as I felt more should have been put into spending and stimulus less on tax cuts that did not push push the econ but where there to try to appease Republicans ( some tax cuts where there to increase investment..I support those)

I would have preferred more aggressive tax cuts in the stimulus package, and far less in "shovel ready projects" and that type thing.

Health care...I guess reforming the most costly drain on US tax dollars....is bad right? With the goal of reducing the cost of health care for all..and on the government...In order to do it, yes you sometimes spend more..and then you look at the long term costs...Also the CBO has reported that the Bill will long term reduce debt...and there is this really funny thing about the health care bill...it has things in there...designed to PAY FOR IT....somthing the tax cuts do not have..nor did any of the wars....or the Bush Medicare plan...or *( just start adding most Republican bills for last 30 years that had any spending)

The CBO has since revised that projection, and it projects a deficit of over $100 billion from that healthcare bill now.

That aside, I am all for healthcare reform.. we need it.. the problem is that the healthcare reform bill did not accomplish that. Additionally, over 222 companies are now exempt from its provisions.

As for Medicare, it is rapidly going bankrupt and its trustees have estimated there is a $38 trillion (yes trillion) shortfall in that program over the next 75 years. Social Security is already running a deficit (would need to check exact numbers), and is rapidly going broke as well.

The whole program needs to be scrapped, but the political reality is that it never will. I think both parties get this.

TARP...Like you said Bush did it.. So no, you can't blame Obama for it, and give Republicans a wash for it...when it was the Republican president who signed this bill, and pushed for it, and was the one who was in charge as to how the funds where to be used...

Bush is responsible for TARP, I agree, but Obama is no less responsible for asking him to ask Congress for the 2nd half of the money. You cannot pin TARP on Bush alone...I hated the idea, but I have seen some good arguments for why it was needed.

Why is it so hard for you to own up to anything?

You are in favor of something that will have huge costs
You are in favor of a Bill that is not paid for
You are in favor of a bill that will have a major impact on US Debt increase.

All 3 a true, no matter how you dice it...deal with it.

The same is of course true for the Democratic Party as well... point is, we need leaders to step up, from any side of the aisle.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

The same is of course true for the Democratic Party as well... point is, we need leaders to step up, from any side of the aisle.

Exactly right. Now, what are the odds that we will get those leaders?

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Exactly right. Now, what are the odds that we will get those leaders?

0%.

 

[Apathy]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

0%.

You are such a pasimist I am certain when hell freezes over we will get those leaders.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

You are such a pasimist I am certain when hell freezes over we will get those leaders.

Ok ok... 0.00000000000001%?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

I would have preferred more aggressive tax cuts in the stimulus package, and far less in "shovel ready projects" and that type thing.



The CBO has since revised that projection, and it projects a deficit of over $100 billion from that healthcare bill now.

That aside, I am all for healthcare reform.. we need it.. the problem is that the healthcare reform bill did not accomplish that. Additionally, over 222 companies are now exempt from its provisions.

As for Medicare, it is rapidly going bankrupt and its trustees have estimated there is a $38 trillion (yes trillion) shortfall in that program over the next 75 years. Social Security is already running a deficit (would need to check exact numbers), and is rapidly going broke as well.

The whole program needs to be scrapped, but the political reality is that it never will. I think both parties get this.



Bush is responsible for TARP, I agree, but Obama is no less responsible for asking him to ask Congress for the 2nd half of the money. You cannot pin TARP on Bush alone...I hated the idea, but I have seen some good arguments for why it was needed.



The same is of course true for the Democratic Party as well... point is, we need leaders to step up, from any side of the aisle.

Just a few points, I agree that the health care bill was flawed...I think it did not go far enough in reducing costs...you may recall I was on the edge of saying dont even pass it...as I felt it had got so watered down it lost the point ( but as someone who has gone years with no health care, while working 2 jobs..I could not sit by while what could be a one time shot at helping fix that was there)...That said, I think it was a start and more needs to be done, and that if major reforms are done, we can lower the debt...as for how this will effect the debt, there are many competing numbers. But at least there is the argument that reform, while costly, will reduce the debt in the end...I think it will in the end...but again, at least there where cost controls built into it to try to pay for it...as for if its enough I guess we will have to wait and see...but if this was in some bizaro world where the Republicans wanted the same bill...seems they would have pushed it...but taken out all the parts that paid for it...

TARP I agree both played a part, but the guy who puts it in place, has to take more of the responsibility then the guy who finishes it off. I am with you, and it think most Liberals are as well...in that we hated TARP...Knowing my views, can anyone think I realy wanted to give rich bankers and hedge Fund runners a bail out from there own mess? of course not...trust me I would have taken great join in watching AIG, Leamahn Bro's , Goldman, Wells Fargo, and all them get crushed like Bugs. But of course, to do that means the ones who take the biggest hurt..as always, are the poor and middle class workers whos 401k, and jobs would be effected...But as much as I hated it, and initially I said no let the free market take its place....the costs where just to great to let it happen in my view.... But the key is, again while Bush pushed the Bail out...he never pushed for any way to pay for it....

but the point is, people like Gipper and others seem to want to yell about the debt when its a LIberal Policy, but when the Republicans do it...who cares.

As made so clear by...help for the unemployed must be paid for....Tax Cuts for the richest 2%....do not....even though both are going to add to the debt...( the tax cut alot more of course)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

0%.

With Zero percent chance politically that one of the 2 parties is going to really cut any of the major Spending programs....How do you justify lowering taxes at the same time then?

If you know no one will cut the spending...it leaves only one way to reduce the debt...and that means someone is going to have to pay ( and some more then others)

 

[Apathy]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

With Zero percent chance politically that one of the 2 parties is going to really cut any of the major Spending programs....How do you justify lowering taxes at the same time then?

If you know no one will cut the spending...it leaves only one way to reduce the debt...and that means someone is going to have to pay ( and some more then others)

There is a limit about how much we can suck out of the tax payers before the dry out and start coughing up dust. If the upper classes dont have the money to hire people the economy is screwed 6 ways til sunday.

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

That's great.

When you're elected pres, maybe you can convince Congress to actually put some of your ideas into practice.

Until then, we're left with the reality that neither party has done squat to reduce spending. The Republicans keep repeating the mantra that reducing taxes will solve all of our economic ills, while the Democrats keep telling us how soaking the rich will do the trick. Neither one is facing the reality that reducing spending and increasing taxes is the only way to attack deficit spending.

Reason why they didn't? BECAUSE THEY'RE PEOPLE LIKE YOU - RINOS AND LEFTWINGERS.

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

And RINO...ok when was the last time there was not a RINO then? if ever....

Reagan. Bush 1 and 2 were RINOs.

its a pretty easy question...name a Republican who reduced overall spending. Bush did not, Bush W did not, Reagan did not...

Other than military spending, REAGAN DID. He had to raise the military spending because of the foreign policy disasters caused by Carter, for which he wasn't responsible. That's a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way from eg obozo flinging trillions of dollars to his political supporters.

"I personally have LOTS of ideas to reduce spending - want to hear some?"

yes, go ahead, tell me them...when you have a idea that will pass 60 votes in the senate, pass the house and would be signed into law...unless it will, its a pipe dream, with a value of nothing.

The possiblibily of passing cuts in a congress loaded with people who think like >>YOU<< wasn't the issue Sparky, but rather what cuts >>COULD<< and >>SHOULD<< be made.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

There is a limit about how much we can suck out of the tax payers before the dry out and start coughing up dust. If the upper classes dont have the money to hire people the economy is screwed 6 ways til sunday.

true, but history shows that that rate was not the one we had in the 90's...when even then it was at historic lows for the rich....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Reagan. Bush 1 and 2 were RINOs.



Other than military spending, REAGAN DID. He had to raise the military spending because of the foreign policy disasters caused by Carter, for which he wasn't responsible. That's a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way from eg obozo flinging trillions of dollars to his political supporters.



The possiblibily of passing cuts in a congress loaded with people who think like >>YOU<< wasn't the issue Sparky, but rather what cuts >>COULD<< and >>SHOULD<< be made.

thats funny, blame the fact that Regan spend more for 8 years...on Carter....and claim that if he was alive today...Ronny would not be called a RINO...he would...

 

[Rick]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

thats funny, blame the fact that Regan spend more for 8 years ..

Your fictional version of history is almost as funny as your gutless refusal to debate.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Your fictional version of history is almost as funny as your gutless refusal to debate.

Are you going to maintain that Reagan wouldn't be called a RINO? OK, Rick, time to step up to the plate and convince us that his trickle down economics worked. Tell us how much he cut back government spending.

Or, failing that, why not list all of the things you think should be cut.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Republicans against debt...but not realy...

Are you going to maintain that Reagan wouldn't be called a RINO? OK, Rick, time to step up to the plate and convince us that his trickle down economics worked. Tell us how much he cut back government spending.

Or, failing that, why not list all of the things you think should be cut.

its funny to be told your not debating...by someone who offers nothing..