by arthanyel September 20, 2012 3:09 PM EDT Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
_______________
Paul Ryan had a budget that would balance the budget in 10 years, yes. That is not radical on bit. President Obama's budget proposals NEVER balanced the budgets, not a single Democrat would support his proposals for the past 2 years.
"So why push a balanced budget amendment?"
If we do not balance our budget, America is in big trouble, much like what Europe is seeing today. I don't care who created the mess, I believe both parties are to blame equally. The question is who is going to be the grown up and make the tough decisions as to how and where we are going to cut spending.
I prefer the Connie Mack Penny Plan, cut 1% out of every dollar spent across the board, for 5 years in a row, nobody get left out. These are real cuts, not cuts in growth of spending, but actual cuts to spending.
I also like the FairTax plan, don't tax on income, tax on consumption. The more you consume, the more you are taxed. This would promote savings and investment in the USA and would also limit the over consumption of the people who consume way to much, like Al Gore and his big homes and big belly and preach to the rest of us on how to live.
by arthanyel September 20, 2012 3:09 PM EDT Yes, Congress controls spending - so you admit that Obama has nothing to do with the deficits since Congress enacted the spending, and virtually all the spending with the exception of the singluar stimulus package in 2009 was pushed and passed by Republicans.
The prosecution rests.
As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose - they just need to do their jobs. And Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
Answer - its a consevrative trick. By getting an amendment to force a balanced budget and then refusing to raise taxes, they force the destructionn of all social spending - which is their real goal.
_________________________
NEWS FLASH.....Democrats took over Congress in Jan. 2007 and that is when the budgets began to explode.
"Answer - its a consevrative trick."
LOL....you mean how 49 states have it a law that they must have a balanced budget process of some form or another? That is a conservative trick?
Buddy, your are looking very sad.
"As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose"
Yes, the GOP has passed several budgets that would lead to a balanced budget in the House, with Democrat votes I might add, only to be block by the Democrat controlled Senate which has not passed a budget in over 3 years and counting.
President Obama's budget proposal for FY2011 was voted on in the Democrat controlled Senate and was voted down 97-0, only needing 51 votes to pass for budgets.
President Obama's budget proposal for FY2012 was voted on in the House and was voted down 414-0.
Not a single Democrat would support President Obama's budget proposals for the past 2 years. Now that is radical...lol
by arthanyel September 20, 2012 2:17 PM EDT As usual, you should look atthe facts before spewing propaganda.
First, you overstate both numbers. The stimulus bill was less than 780B (not 1T) and the Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B).
____________________
Now your just splitting hairs, what about the interest on the $780 Billion, or do you think that is interest free?
People that borrow money without ever having the intent of paying it back never look at the interest payments.
"Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B)"
you kidding right?......what a joke....lol...just more of the same.
Tell you what, go out a buy the most expensive car you can find, buy it and have your grandchild that is not even born yet pay for it in your last will and testament.
Last year there was a vote in the House for a balanced budget amendment, who voted for it and who voted against it?
After the 1994 take over of Congress by the GOP for the first time in over 40 years, there was another balanced budget amendment, who voted for it and who voted against it.
Congress controls spending, not the President.
The President could also be completely left out of the budget process with a 2/3 vote by congress, leaving him meaningless.
Yes, Congress controls spending - so you admit that Obama has nothing to do with the deficits since Congress enacted the spending, and virtually all the spending with the exception of the singluar stimulus package in 2009 was pushed and passed by Republicans.
The prosecution rests.
As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose - they just need to do their jobs. And Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
Answer - its a consevrative trick. By getting an amendment to force a balanced budget and then refusing to raise taxes, they force the destructionn of all social spending - which is their real goal.
Try again. Why not just agree to compromise and pass a real balanced budget instead of huffing and puffing for a trick?
by chevyhotrod September 20, 2012 1:19 PM EDT Your claim that President Obama has spent less than any President in 40 years is a complete utter joke. Government spending has increased dramatically since he took office, he said so himself and many Democrats say that we have to continue to spend in order to boost the economy, but when you see that actually deficits, well that was someone else....what a joke...and makes zero sense.
----- cut here -----
*BUZZ* Wrong again, thanks for playing.
Government spending HAS NOT DRASTICALLY INCREASED under Obama. In fact, other than the one time stimulus bill, it has barely gone up AT ALL. You are confusing PRE-EXISTING spending commitments (REPUBLICAN ones, mostly) with anything Obama has done.
Your argument (pathetic as it is) is that since Obama and the Democrats did not immediately and radically cut ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending they are to blame for the ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending? And that because the REPUBLICANS handed Obama the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression Obama should NOT have tried to stop the collapse by allowing ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending to continue?
Stop listening to propaganda from Faux News and get the facts.
PRE-EXISTING spending commitments (REPUBLICAN ones, mostly) with anything Obama has done.
So Social Security is a pre-existing spending commitments put in place by whom?
In 2003 the combined spending for all social insurance programs constituted 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product.
Given to us by Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt
So Medicare is a pre-existing spending commitment put in place by whom?
In 1965, Congress created Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance to people age 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history, by Democrat President Johnson.
"REPUBLICANS handed Obama the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression"
Educate yourself before you post, ignorance is bliss. Research campaign contribution for Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns and all the other financial firms that nearly brought down our economy for the past 20 years.
Or read "Reckless Endangerment" written by liberals and spells out who did what and when. Also President Clinton said it best, Demcrats are more to blame. Google it fool....
You achieved your goal of driving America right to the bottom !!!
Time for new leadership, for real.....bring back manufacturing, stop the class warfare 24/7, let's get America working again.....America can't afford 4 more years of dismal economy under Obama....we deserve better.
4 more years of America being attacked all around the world, because your president is a weak liberal.
1) "Bring back manufacturing". Obama has been the first president in 40 years to see an INCREASE of manufacutring jobs. All your Republican Presidents presided over the greatest outsouring boom in history.
2) "Goal of driving America to the bootom" That would be GROVER NORQUIST and the REPUBLICANS with the "starve the beast" plan (look it up) whhere they intended to CREATE A DEBT CRISIS to try and force radical cuts in social spending, and then to DO IT AGAIN unti lALL social spending is eliminated.
3) "Being attacked because the President is weak" I suggest you convene a panel of the top 10 Al Queda leaders to debate that - oh wait, you can't because THEY ARE ALL DEAD. Attacks against Americans overseas have been RADICALLY LOWER since Obama took office - reconcile THAT.
And finally, the economy is weak but growing - under Republicans it was imploding into Depression, and it would be stronger if REPUBLICANS STOPPED BLOCKING every single thing the President is trying to do to improve it.
Republicans ran in 2010 on the basis of a "laser focus on jobs". You've had the House for two years and a filibuster control of the Senate - and you used the time to vote 33 TIMES to repeal Obamacare (which would nevr happen) and have not passd A SINGLE JOBS BILL.
Give us all a break, when Obama is re-elected maybe your party will start compromising and we can get some progress since they can't spend four years trying to defeat HIM.
by arthanyel September 20, 2012 12:03 PM EDT "382,000 jobs lost" meaning 382,000 filed for unemployment - a DROP IN FILING. They also didn't report that last week on average about 410,000 NEW HIRES occurred. So what's your point?
If your point is that the hiring is anemic and we need more, I agree - tell your Teapublicans in Congress to stop blocking the Jobs Act.
As for the "spending" Obama has asked for and received LESS SPENDING than any President in the last 40 years. You confuse the high defcitis and debt with Obama - correctly you need to blame THE REPUBLICANS as they created most of it. $13T of the $16T debt is directly attributed to REPUBLICAN tax cuts and REPUBLICAN unfunded spending - Obama was just saddled with those when he took office.
_________________
"to stop blocking the Jobs Act"
Just another $500 billion spending bill, just like the $1 Trillion dollar stimulus.
But, hey that is all Bush's fault right? What a joke. Your rabbit hole is getting smaller and smaller to crawl out of.
So when Obama leave office, someone else will be resonsible for the debt and deficits President Obama created?
When will President Obama take responsibility for anything he has done?
If the Democrats and President Obama did not like all the spending and tax cuts, they should have eliminated them when they had complete control of the House & Senate in 2009 & 2010.
Your claim that President Obama has spent less than any President in 40 years is a complete utter joke. Government spending has increased dramatically since he took office, he said so himself and many Democrats say that we have to continue to spend in order to boost the economy, but when you see that actually deficits, well that was someone else....what a joke...and makes zero sense.
As usual, you should look atthe facts before spewing propaganda.
First, you overstate both numbers. The stimulus bill was less than 780B (not 1T) and the Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B).
Second, much of th cost in the Jobs Act is tax cuts on business, which is what Republicans claim they want to do - just not if it helps America (and therefore increases the chance Obama gets re-elected).
Third, Republicans and Bush are responsible for most of the debt. That is just THE FACTS. Look them up. The Republican attempts to pin their own stupidity on Obama are pathetic.
Fourth, the Dmeocrats NEVER HAD "complete control" of the Congress. For 57 days, if they could get Joe Libermann to vote with them, they could break a Republican filibuster. Other than that, they were blocked by Republicans.
Fifth, the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. Yes, Democrats could have forced through an early termination but in the middle of the (succesful!!) attempts to avoid a second Great Depression they correctly allowed them to expire naturally - until Republicans blocked that too. And of course regardless of what Democrats want, Republicans want to keep all the tax cuts in place permanently.
However, if you want to say that Obama and the Democrats have to take half of the responsibility for the middle class cuts for 2011 and 2012 (and beyond) then that's fair. So Republicans are not solely responsible for $13T of $16T debt.
How can CBS print an article that says the economey is recovering now based on March 2012 data? I won't say they have an agenda, but very poor use of old data to interpet current activity.
Any fool can run up the credit card, who is going to fix our debt and deficits when all the federal revenues (taxes) just pays for the interest on the debt?
I guess CBS missed the 382,000 folks who lost their jobs last week, or didn't tell us about the 400,000 folks who gave up and dropped out of the work force last month, or how we have had over 8.1% unemployment for more than 40 some months. I guess the Media doesn't care that we just went over 16 trillion in debt with no plan to stop the spending of 1 plus trillion dollars a year. It is so sad the national Media is determine to tell us half of the story so their candidate Obama can get re-elected.
"382,000 jobs lost" meaning 382,000 filed for unemployment - a DROP IN FILING. They also didn't report that last week on average about 410,000 NEW HIRES occurred. So what's your point?
If your point is that the hiring is anemic and we need more, I agree - tell your Teapublicans in Congress to stop blocking the Jobs Act.
As for the "spending" Obama has asked for and received LESS SPENDING than any President in the last 40 years. You confuse the high defcitis and debt with Obama - correctly you need to blame THE REPUBLICANS as they created most of it. $13T of the $16T debt is directly attributed to REPUBLICAN tax cuts and REPUBLICAN unfunded spending - Obama was just saddled with those when he took office.
So, you are right - we need to throw the bums out who are blocking job creaiton and runnig up the debt - and that would b REPUBLICANS.
Took the country nearly 10yrs to emerge from the great depression in the 1930s and ultimately it took a world war to end it totally.
Since we cant have a war,we have to do things at a slower pace so there isnt anyway were going to get out of this current mess in just 4yrs but will tell you one thing,if Romney wins and the GOP takes both the house and senate,we will go right back into recession.
The GOP playbook of trickle down economics will return with tax cuts for the rich and and slashing benefits to the poor.
We do have the war, in several countries. Wake up and smell the coffee, if it were not for the wars most of those people would be unemployed also. Why do you think Obama did not bring home the troops like he promised. He can't create the jobs and neither can Romney. Too many government restrictions on business and they just keep adding them. The company I work for is reducing its medical coverage, our current plan is deemed a cadillac plan and the company will have to pay a $3 million fine under Obamacare
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
_______________
Paul Ryan had a budget that would balance the budget in 10 years, yes. That is not radical on bit. President Obama's budget proposals NEVER balanced the budgets, not a single Democrat would support his proposals for the past 2 years.
"So why push a balanced budget amendment?"
If we do not balance our budget, America is in big trouble, much like what Europe is seeing today. I don't care who created the mess, I believe both parties are to blame equally. The question is who is going to be the grown up and make the tough decisions as to how and where we are going to cut spending.
I prefer the Connie Mack Penny Plan, cut 1% out of every dollar spent across the board, for 5 years in a row, nobody get left out. These are real cuts, not cuts in growth of spending, but actual cuts to spending.
I also like the FairTax plan, don't tax on income, tax on consumption. The more you consume, the more you are taxed. This would promote savings and investment in the USA and would also limit the over consumption of the people who consume way to much, like Al Gore and his big homes and big belly and preach to the rest of us on how to live.
Yes, Congress controls spending - so you admit that Obama has nothing to do with the deficits since Congress enacted the spending, and virtually all the spending with the exception of the singluar stimulus package in 2009 was pushed and passed by Republicans.
The prosecution rests.
As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose - they just need to do their jobs. And Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
Answer - its a consevrative trick. By getting an amendment to force a balanced budget and then refusing to raise taxes, they force the destructionn of all social spending - which is their real goal.
_________________________
NEWS FLASH.....Democrats took over Congress in Jan. 2007 and that is when the budgets began to explode.
"Answer - its a consevrative trick."
LOL....you mean how 49 states have it a law that they must have a balanced budget process of some form or another? That is a conservative trick?
Buddy, your are looking very sad.
"As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose"
Yes, the GOP has passed several budgets that would lead to a balanced budget in the House, with Democrat votes I might add, only to be block by the Democrat controlled Senate which has not passed a budget in over 3 years and counting.
President Obama's budget proposal for FY2011 was voted on in the Democrat controlled Senate and was voted down 97-0, only needing 51 votes to pass for budgets.
President Obama's budget proposal for FY2012 was voted on in the House and was voted down 414-0.
Not a single Democrat would support President Obama's budget proposals for the past 2 years. Now that is radical...lol
As usual, you should look atthe facts before spewing propaganda.
First, you overstate both numbers. The stimulus bill was less than 780B (not 1T) and the Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B).
____________________
Now your just splitting hairs, what about the interest on the $780 Billion, or do you think that is interest free?
People that borrow money without ever having the intent of paying it back never look at the interest payments.
"Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B)"
you kidding right?......what a joke....lol...just more of the same.
Tell you what, go out a buy the most expensive car you can find, buy it and have your grandchild that is not even born yet pay for it in your last will and testament.
After the 1994 take over of Congress by the GOP for the first time in over 40 years, there was another balanced budget amendment, who voted for it and who voted against it.
Congress controls spending, not the President.
The President could also be completely left out of the budget process with a 2/3 vote by congress, leaving him meaningless.
The prosecution rests.
As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose - they just need to do their jobs. And Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
Answer - its a consevrative trick. By getting an amendment to force a balanced budget and then refusing to raise taxes, they force the destructionn of all social spending - which is their real goal.
Try again. Why not just agree to compromise and pass a real balanced budget instead of huffing and puffing for a trick?
Your claim that President Obama has spent less than any President in 40 years is a complete utter joke. Government spending has increased dramatically since he took office, he said so himself and many Democrats say that we have to continue to spend in order to boost the economy, but when you see that actually deficits, well that was someone else....what a joke...and makes zero sense.
----- cut here -----
*BUZZ* Wrong again, thanks for playing.
Government spending HAS NOT DRASTICALLY INCREASED under Obama. In fact, other than the one time stimulus bill, it has barely gone up AT ALL. You are confusing PRE-EXISTING spending commitments (REPUBLICAN ones, mostly) with anything Obama has done.
Your argument (pathetic as it is) is that since Obama and the Democrats did not immediately and radically cut ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending they are to blame for the ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending? And that because the REPUBLICANS handed Obama the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression Obama should NOT have tried to stop the collapse by allowing ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending to continue?
Stop listening to propaganda from Faux News and get the facts.
So Social Security is a pre-existing spending commitments put in place by whom?
In 2003 the combined spending for all social insurance programs constituted 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product.
Given to us by Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt
So Medicare is a pre-existing spending commitment put in place by whom?
In 1965, Congress created Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance to people age 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history, by Democrat President Johnson.
"REPUBLICANS handed Obama the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression"
Educate yourself before you post, ignorance is bliss. Research campaign contribution for Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns and all the other financial firms that nearly brought down our economy for the past 20 years.
Or read "Reckless Endangerment" written by liberals and spells out who did what and when. Also President Clinton said it best, Demcrats are more to blame. Google it fool....
You achieved your goal of driving America right to the bottom !!!
Time for new leadership, for real.....bring back manufacturing, stop the class warfare 24/7, let's get America working again.....America can't afford 4 more years of dismal economy under Obama....we deserve better.
4 more years of America being attacked all around the world, because your president is a weak liberal.
1) "Bring back manufacturing". Obama has been the first president in 40 years to see an INCREASE of manufacutring jobs. All your Republican Presidents presided over the greatest outsouring boom in history.
2) "Goal of driving America to the bootom" That would be GROVER NORQUIST and the REPUBLICANS with the "starve the beast" plan (look it up) whhere they intended to CREATE A DEBT CRISIS to try and force radical cuts in social spending, and then to DO IT AGAIN unti lALL social spending is eliminated.
3) "Being attacked because the President is weak" I suggest you convene a panel of the top 10 Al Queda leaders to debate that - oh wait, you can't because THEY ARE ALL DEAD. Attacks against Americans overseas have been RADICALLY LOWER since Obama took office - reconcile THAT.
And finally, the economy is weak but growing - under Republicans it was imploding into Depression, and it would be stronger if REPUBLICANS STOPPED BLOCKING every single thing the President is trying to do to improve it.
Republicans ran in 2010 on the basis of a "laser focus on jobs". You've had the House for two years and a filibuster control of the Senate - and you used the time to vote 33 TIMES to repeal Obamacare (which would nevr happen) and have not passd A SINGLE JOBS BILL.
Give us all a break, when Obama is re-elected maybe your party will start compromising and we can get some progress since they can't spend four years trying to defeat HIM.
"382,000 jobs lost" meaning 382,000 filed for unemployment - a DROP IN FILING. They also didn't report that last week on average about 410,000 NEW HIRES occurred. So what's your point?
If your point is that the hiring is anemic and we need more, I agree - tell your Teapublicans in Congress to stop blocking the Jobs Act.
As for the "spending" Obama has asked for and received LESS SPENDING than any President in the last 40 years. You confuse the high defcitis and debt with Obama - correctly you need to blame THE REPUBLICANS as they created most of it. $13T of the $16T debt is directly attributed to REPUBLICAN tax cuts and REPUBLICAN unfunded spending - Obama was just saddled with those when he took office.
_________________
"to stop blocking the Jobs Act"
Just another $500 billion spending bill, just like the $1 Trillion dollar stimulus.
But, hey that is all Bush's fault right? What a joke. Your rabbit hole is getting smaller and smaller to crawl out of.
When will President Obama take responsibility for anything he has done?
If the Democrats and President Obama did not like all the spending and tax cuts, they should have eliminated them when they had complete control of the House & Senate in 2009 & 2010.
Your claim that President Obama has spent less than any President in 40 years is a complete utter joke. Government spending has increased dramatically since he took office, he said so himself and many Democrats say that we have to continue to spend in order to boost the economy, but when you see that actually deficits, well that was someone else....what a joke...and makes zero sense.
First, you overstate both numbers. The stimulus bill was less than 780B (not 1T) and the Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B).
Second, much of th cost in the Jobs Act is tax cuts on business, which is what Republicans claim they want to do - just not if it helps America (and therefore increases the chance Obama gets re-elected).
Third, Republicans and Bush are responsible for most of the debt. That is just THE FACTS. Look them up. The Republican attempts to pin their own stupidity on Obama are pathetic.
Fourth, the Dmeocrats NEVER HAD "complete control" of the Congress. For 57 days, if they could get Joe Libermann to vote with them, they could break a Republican filibuster. Other than that, they were blocked by Republicans.
Fifth, the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. Yes, Democrats could have forced through an early termination but in the middle of the (succesful!!) attempts to avoid a second Great Depression they correctly allowed them to expire naturally - until Republicans blocked that too. And of course regardless of what Democrats want, Republicans want to keep all the tax cuts in place permanently.
However, if you want to say that Obama and the Democrats have to take half of the responsibility for the middle class cuts for 2011 and 2012 (and beyond) then that's fair. So Republicans are not solely responsible for $13T of $16T debt.
Just $12.5T
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 - Lets keep this recovery going shall we?!
If your point is that the hiring is anemic and we need more, I agree - tell your Teapublicans in Congress to stop blocking the Jobs Act.
As for the "spending" Obama has asked for and received LESS SPENDING than any President in the last 40 years. You confuse the high defcitis and debt with Obama - correctly you need to blame THE REPUBLICANS as they created most of it. $13T of the $16T debt is directly attributed to REPUBLICAN tax cuts and REPUBLICAN unfunded spending - Obama was just saddled with those when he took office.
So, you are right - we need to throw the bums out who are blocking job creaiton and runnig up the debt - and that would b REPUBLICANS.
Since we cant have a war,we have to do things at a slower pace so
there isnt anyway were going to get out of this current mess in just 4yrs but will tell you one thing,if Romney wins and the GOP takes both the house and senate,we will go right back into recession.
The GOP playbook of trickle down economics will return with tax cuts for the rich and and slashing benefits to the poor.