Boehner Strikes a Better Tone, Promises More Significant Results
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
When the big deal was struck this weekend, more than a few of you noticed that I was a little irritated by the victory dance. I wasn’t trying to bash the Republicans for the deal on its merits. They only control one house of Congress, after all. But if I had been there, I would not have put up with that celebratory attitude. I would have said something more like this:
We have nothing to celebrate today. Our government is about $14 Trillion dollars in debt. Our interest alone is $200 billion each year. And we are celebrating a $39 billion cut? We have not reduced the debt. We have only slightly reduced the rate of increase of it. And that this might be the best that can be achieved under the circumstances is a travesty.
Yeah, no one is going to give me awards for diplomacy, but sometimes a person needs to splash a little of the cold water of reality on people.
And if Boehner said anything like that at the time, I hadn’t heard it. But… he seems to be saying something closer to the mark now:
While the president’s party still controls Washington, House Republicans have dragged a reluctant Senate and White House into taking this imperfect first step toward getting spending under control. The agreement will reduce government spending by $38.5 billion over the next few months — and by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decade.
This is real money. And as Stanford University economics professor John B. Taylor observed, “Reducing discretionary spending in 2011 … will help establish credibility and show that government can actually take needed actions, not just promise to take them.”
Yeah, um, I am sick of symbolic gestures. When are we getting to actually doing it? Oh, wait, here we go…
But the agreement is far from perfect, and we need to do much more if we’re serious about creating new jobs, fixing our spending-driven debt crisis, and ending the uncertainty that continues to plague our economy.
That’s why this week, we’ll advance our fight from saving billions of dollars to saving trillions of dollars as we turn our full attention to the GOP budget outlined by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., aptly titled “The Path to Prosperity.”
Snark aside, read the whole thing. I won’t guess whether he wrote it, but it’s in his name so we should hold him to it.
Of course, the President has a slightly different approach:
In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.
“Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at here,” David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said Sunday in one of multiple television appearances. “Revenues are going to have to be part of this,” he said, referring to tax increases.
Until now, Mr. Obama has been largely absent from the raging debate over the long-term deficit. The White House has done little with the recommendations of its own bipartisan deficit commission. And Mr. Obama’s 2012 budget didn’t offer many new ideas for tackling entitlement spending, among the biggest long-term drains on the federal budget.
Sure, tax our way out of this hole so we can keep spending like ever, apparently on the theory that the host can feed a parasite larger than itself.
Yeah, and you should read that whole thing, too.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Strangely enough, the Los Angeles Times claimed it was a victory for Republicans.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 4/11/2011 @ 9:22 amPloofter and Barcky are essentially unserious people. This is an early campaign ad, from the same leftist plpaybook, demonize the rich. We do not have a revenue problem.
JD (3dfbdf) — 4/11/2011 @ 9:25 amTotally OT, but:
Is it just me, or has Andrew Sullivan pretty much dropped off the internet? Took awhile after he lost his mind, but it did happen.
And how’s Charles Johnson’s traffic looking lately? I’m guessing not as busy as six years ago.
Mitch (890cbf) — 4/11/2011 @ 9:31 amI would rather not read or listen to anything from the Doofus who currently occupies the position of POTUS. My normally strong stomach can’t take it. The only thing worse is the VPOTUS, Goofus .(I don;t suppose that the Secret Service uses those designations as code words for their respective details, but I would love to hear it.
BarSinister (a9e7f6) — 4/11/2011 @ 9:39 amBingo
in_awe (44fed5) — 4/11/2011 @ 9:44 am“Is it just me, or has Andrew Sullivan pretty much dropped off the internet?”
Mitch – There was a good clip up of Andrew in a sane moment from Bill Maher’s show last week. He was actually taking Eliot Spitzer and Maher to task over tax increase, saying taxing the rich would not solve our problems, that there was not enough money there to do the job.
There isn’t, but most lefties either have not looked and the numbers or are too dishonest about them to admit it and are content with demagoguing the issue.
It’s the spending stupid, as the old chestnut goes.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2011 @ 9:49 amHe reverted to type, in this weekends posts, he must have high chiropractor bills, from all that whiplash
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/11/2011 @ 9:53 amBoehner’s House should immediately and without delay pass bumble’s cuts without the tax increases.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:13 amor are bumble’s cuts to medicare and SS only cuts what will effect rich people?
This seems likely.
Pass them anyway.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:14 amOf course like any bad commenter I’m just going to comment first and then maybe go read the whole thing-but-here’s the problem.
It’s the herd mentality of the Left media-and unfortunately the right follows right along-almost everyone wants to focus on John Boehner (-to be fair a few focus on President Obama) but why doesn’t anyone focus on Harry Reid?
Harry Reid could possible be the second most powerful person in American government and no one notices him.
I literally think that is by design.
Remember when Obama said he would veto any bill that came up to him and had funding for the troops but did not get rid of the rider of Planned Parenthood?
Well how the hell was that suppose to happen? How was anything like that suppose to get by Harry Reid and the Democrat majority held Senate?
That’s the construct and the Right media keeps falling for it.
CNN asks a military spouse-
“Who do you blame the President or Congress?”
With that construct most of America hears-
“Who do you blame-Democrats or Republicans?”
So why isn’t anyone writing screeds about Harry Reid?
Well the lefties have their media well trained and everyone wants to be talking about and reacting to what they are writing.
It’s how they will always lead.
It’s how Clinton won by pitting himself against Congress. Obama should not be able to do that-again Harry Reid holds the Senate. But then Obama has the audacity-he knows his base and a significant amount of the rest of the American electorate is easily fooled.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:17 amWho cares about Chuckles.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:18 amI read the whole post-I just didn’t read everything linked yet.
Anyone see any Harry Reid sucks articles from the Right any where yet? Anything more than one graph?
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:20 amOK just for fun I scanned the second linked article at The Wall Street Journal not one mention of Harry Reid and more importantly not one mention of how he hell Republicans are suppose to get it all pass a Democrat majority Senate.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:26 amwhat you think it will be easier with the Ryan budget, getting it past Snowe, Collins, Brown
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:33 amand Murkowski, forget about Harry Reid for a minute, those four stab us in the back every chance
they get.
Harry Reid has a hell of a lot more votes than the Wednesday Gang-how does that keep happening?
Oh and now there is all this talk about “third party” please go back through history most of the splits come from the right-and take votes from the Right side.
Carter didn’t lose by that much-and he didn’t have one demographic group voting for him by 85% and Obama doesn’t have gas lines, yet?
How are you going to defeat Obama when you need appox. 60% of the white vote?
A majority of that is female.
Our only hope is Ralph Nader-and that ain’t happening.
Do you see a Republican candidate that can get 60% of the white vote?
That can get the Reagan Democrat and/or the white Catholic swing vote?
Four more years is looking pretty damn probable.
Unless we get the Nader left split but that’s something the media doesn’t cover and instead we are getting the gift of Mr. Swirly Hair-do.
We are Trumped.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:46 amCongress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year,
We need to debunk this statement. It is $125,000 a year (for each member or a couple). GOP needs to reject Obama definitions period.
Wayne (b37235) — 4/11/2011 @ 10:53 am*affect*
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/11/2011 @ 11:06 amDaley
Ftfy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/11/2011 @ 11:16 amI could not care less about Boehner’s tone. It is the actions that bug me. That 38 billion in horrific end of the world cuts was almost doubled by the revisions to the deficit projections. We spend too much. Way too much. And have for a long time. Barcky is just doing it, on steroids. If Team R spent like drunken sailors, Barcky is spending like the Spanish Armada on crack.
JD (2da347) — 4/11/2011 @ 11:25 amUntil now, Mr. Obama has been largely absent from the raging debate over the long-term deficit. The White House has done little with the recommendations of its own bipartisan deficit commission. And Mr. Obama’s 2012 budget didn’t offer many new ideas for tackling entitlement spending, among the biggest long-term drains on the federal budget.
Screw it. I’m tired of giving Our President the benefit of the doubt. Barack Obama wants to bring America down, to reduce it to rubble that he and his cohort can rebuild in their own fashion, with the Smart People permanently in charge.
The deficit crisis is one means to that end. And it’s working.
Murgatroyd (fd5fcd) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:02 pmIn my humble opinion, Boehner should have dug in his heels, and said no now, no next week, no next year. and let them shut it down and sat back and watched the Democrat’s poll numbers fall to the single digits or less. And then he would have been in a better position to get some REAL concessions. I do not buy the whole “we got the best deal possible” line one iota.
Rorschach (c5574d) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:03 pmBoehner cut a deal for 38 billion and hey, it was a start, it puts the cutting issue front and center.
Unfortunately, it also became glaringly clear to the American Bolshevicks that he won’t take the heat or pull the trigger for fear that he could be made to look bad in the press, from here on out the Bolshevicks are licking their chops for the next battles with the debt ceiling and Ryan’s road to prosperity.I suppose we will be forced to except a tiny fraction of what it will take to turn the country around and be told to like it but only after they add another 2 trillion to the debt limit.
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:14 pmSomething seems…….Off, in the logic department.
the celebrateyness was weird and out of touch and it tells us something about Boehner
Something not very flattering.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:16 pm“it tells us something about Boehner”
Mr. Feets – That killing babies is more important than saving this socialist banana republic of a country like it is for those femisogynist nazis of Team D? I don’t think so.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:22 pmHmmm.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:27 pmHe’s playing both sides of this. He’s a politician. He’s not like Newt, for example, and I think that in the present environment, that’s a very good thing. Even Ryan probably wouldn’t be as effective a negotiator or political calculator as Boehner.
justavoter, now is the perfect time for Obama to have the debate on Ryan’s path to prosperity. He holds the best cards, and has the most power. It doesn’t mean much that the Path to Prosperity is an urgently needed improvement.
So Boehner did the best he could with a point in the process where he can only win very little. He could have taken the nation to a shutdown, but that would have burned much of the possibility of pushing the Path to Prosperity later on.
It’s not like the American people will accept a shutdown every year. They will start freaking out.
I too am disheartened that we can’t do better. I blame the GOP for spending far too much in the Delay era, which gave the democrats cover to be ten times worse. But maybe Boehner made the best call to win a little now, and press the issue later when we have more of an advantage (debt ceiling, nearer elections, etc).
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:29 pmDustin,I’m not one of these “shut the government down” people.I’m a simple man who’s eyes are wide open as to what kind of people are running the country.
Our “last” hope is on the GOP and thats scary quite frankly but when they make a pledge, they need to follow through on it or take it to the mat.
The question of if 38 billion or 100 billion making an immediate impact is a moot point, it’s the convictions of our leaders that will bring us home.
The media was going to hang the government shutdown on Boehner, we all knew that going in.
The same media are going to drop that same blame gift on Boehner on how the country will default because he won’t raise the debt limit and you can add to that all of the dead babies and seniors when Ryan’s plan is debated.
You see where I’m going here?
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/11/2011 @ 12:48 pmAfter settling for a fraction of what they promised on the budget, I think it is all to clear on where we are going.
Why shouldn’t we raise taxes?
1. We are deep in debt and it is pollitically impossible to reach a balanced budget by cuts alone- even the most rabid Tea Partier can’t invent a budget that is balanced anytime in the foreseeable future.
2. More than anyone else, the rich (lets say over $500K in household income)reap the benefits of what government spending brings; by all rights they should pay much more than anyone else, and historically they have.
3. Its bad public policy to ask for “sacrifice” that leaves the most comfortable unscathed; we have no trouble asking blue collar kids to sacrifice a limb or their life out of patriotism, but asking the welathy to contribute their fair share is somehow taboo.
Most of the people whining about high taxes are just lazy, wanting to ride the public benefits highways for free.
Liberty60 (53aeab) — 4/11/2011 @ 1:36 pmYeah, I certainly do. It’s only sane that you’re upset about this. The very best we can do right now is an absurdly pathetic reduction in the rate if debt increase. The only reasonable solution to our problem is radically different: not only must we stop deficits completely, but we need to pay down the debt considerably.
And the best the GOP can do today is, as you note, not even the $100 billion promised (the oldest trick in the democrat playbook is to find a hard promise from the GOP, and make it impossible to keep).
The dems are to blame, though, and I think the cure is to get the GOP more power.
—
Liberty 60, the ‘rich’ already pay far more than their fair share. When you talk about tax increases to pay off the debt, you are talking about tax increases on the middle class and the poor. Otherwise you just aren’t seriously talking about debt reduction, because there aren’t nearly enough rich people to make even a minor dent in the deficit, let alone the debt.
It sounded like you were talking about the people who are ALREADY PAYING ALL THE TAXES. Are you really talking about taxing the people who pay less than their share?
And what about the practical impact, rather than your social justice claim that the rich are somehow lazy and stealing benefits from the rest of us? Will taxing the productive even more than they are taxed today help this economy, or will it collapse it?
No, you’re a demagogue. You want people to believe that the people who pay basically no taxes are paying their fair share, and it’s some evil rich class of swindlers who are cheating us. You don’t say this because you actually think this is a solution to our problems. It’s been shown a million times that there is no way to tax our way out of this deficit.
You say all this because you want to divert attention from the real problem: SPENDING.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/11/2011 @ 1:45 pmDustin-
The canard about the rich already paying all the taxes is just that, a canard repeated to disguise the fact that they pay most of the taxes because they have all the money- when something like 40% of the nations wealth is held by the top 1%, of course they pay the bulk of taxes-
but still not nearly their fair share.
Is it fair that a billion dollars of capital gains gets taxed at a lower rate than the personal income of a janitor?
I don’t think so.
And you are right, soaking the rich doesnt magically pay off the debt, but you have all seen that graph that shows that the biggest contributor to future debt is the Bush tax cuts; restoring Clinton-era tax rates will hold down the scary deficit monster we are hearing about.
And yes, the rich who complain about high taxes ARE lazy- no one benefits from the products of government spending mroe than rich people.
Liberty60 (53aeab) — 4/11/2011 @ 2:41 pmOh, and about spending-
I agree, spending is wildly out of control- but the spending no one wants to talk about is the military/ Homeland Security budget, which consumes almost 1/3 of all federal spending (about 1 Trillion);
The “historic” cuts agreed to this weekend are a rounding error to the Pentagon.
Ending the foreign wars and shuttering some of the nearly 1,000 military bases we station around the globe would do far more to control spending than throwing Grandma into the street.
Liberty60 (53aeab) — 4/11/2011 @ 2:44 pmFor the record, it is irrational to just pile on more demagoguery as to the target of these tax hikes.
I want numbers. How much money are you looking to take in. $1.5 trillion or so? OK. What sane tax system are you proposing that will raise that money? How will that affect the economy? How will pay it?
Truth is, this idea is a complete lie, meant only to demonize and distract, as the democrats spend more and more and more and more and more and more, as they feel safe there is pretty much nothing we can do about it right now.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/11/2011 @ 2:52 pmrather than ‘how will pay it’, ‘who will pay it’. As in, I want a estimate as to how many people and entities are expected to pay this this $1.5 trillion tax hike.
I don’t want to just hear some vague explanation that they are really evil, but a realistic count, so I know you’re not a liar.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/11/2011 @ 2:54 pm==Ending the foreign wars and shuttering some of the nearly 1,000 military bases we station around the globe would do far more to control spending==
That’d be a tad easier if the president had not just embroiled us in a third military theater with no clear end in sight and without asking the congress for approval.
elissa (5aefd1) — 4/11/2011 @ 2:54 pmIndeed, elissa. I do think Paul Ryan’s wishes to cut defense spending are perhaps too much for the President who will inherit the mess Obama has made of the world. It’s far worse than the situation Obama ‘inherited’. More wars, with a vaguer endgame, and a much more powerful Russia and China.
But spending must be cut, and defense is one place to cut it. As usual, I can expect the left to vaguely pretend that’s all the cutting needed, and cuts to bloated social programs, such as eliminating Obamacare, would somehow not be needed.
So let’s cut as much defense as we can without being unsafe, and cut as much social engineering as we can without losing society (which is a lot of cutting!), and cut as much government bureaucracy as we can cut without losing essential functions.
Ryan’s plan doesn’t even come close to this, but I’ll take what I can get in this political climate of liars.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/11/2011 @ 2:59 pm“of course they pay the bulk of taxes-
but still not nearly their fair share.”
Liberty60 – Given that the rich in this country are taxed at higher levels relative to their income than all but one developed country, please share with us how exactly you determine that they do not pay their fair share of taxes. Is there an objective standard which you follow?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:08 pmdaleyrocks, I think the standard is that because they aren’t liberty60, it’s convenient to blame them.
Even though they pay almost all the taxes, it’s convenient to never admit they are paying their share.
It’s a reasonable guess that taxing them more will reduce revenue, but that’s not his point. His point is that we must not cut spending, and rather should blame people for the doom the democrats are willing to preside over.
Again, I want a dollar value. Give me a dollar value for defense cuts, and a dollar value for this tax increase. Own your plan, ‘liberty’.
The fact is that there are people in this country who provably do not pay their fair share, but they are voting themselves wealth from the US Treasury and our kids and grandkids. They like that arrangement.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:13 pmReason 319,493 why the left needs to be utterly obliterated in 2012.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:16 pmPalin says dumb things and is not good enough to run our country.
Biden says some stupid things and the left swoons over it saying this is proof he has the chops to run america.
Hypocritical pieces of garbage.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:22 pm1. Military spending has almost doubled in the last decade; So its not unreasonable to target a 50% reduction over the next few years, to cut nearly 500 Billion per year out of the federal budget; this dwarfs any of the cuts mentioned to date;
2. The marginal tax rates of the Clinton era would not by themselves produce a balanced budget-but they would spread the sacrifice and increase revenue and, combined with the spending cuts above, greatly reduce the deficit.
3. For good measure, cutting agricultural, oil and gas subsidies would also be a good place to look.
Its absurd for people who have no intention of sacrificing anything to be telling the other 98% that we should get serious about the deficit.
Liberty60 (53aeab) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:24 pmThe MSM insists palin is dumb but she isn’t is what i meant to say in my post 39.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:26 pmLiberty–you have not read Ryan’s proposals have you?
elissa (5aefd1) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:27 pmHe hasn’t.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:29 pmLiberty is an object lesson in what to expect from the left in the upcoming months.
JD (0d2ffc) — 4/11/2011 @ 3:42 pmWhat did he say wrong?
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/11/2011 @ 4:02 pmWell, I am underwhelmed. I can see the deal now.
$38 billion reductions this year, $38 billion next year, and projected reductions in 2045 of $2,800 billion!
That’s always the formula. We promise to actually do something 30 years out when we are gone…
I’m not buying it any more. Fix it or watch me vote for someone else next time!
WarEagle (08c61f) — 4/11/2011 @ 4:46 pmYeah, you know… you could at least read my comments first. The GOP is the only party with a serious DoD spending cut proposal I’m aware of. And they have a more across board approach.
Unlike you, who insist the people not paying taxes are paying their fair share, but the ‘rich’ need to be taxed more.
Where’s your personal sacrifice? Why not taxes on the bottom 50% of wage earners? Why not elimination of most entitlements? That would actually work, unlike eliminating 100% of DoD.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/11/2011 @ 5:00 pmThe White House press secretary said today that a failure to raise the debt ceiling next month would be Armageddon. But you know what’s funny? In 2006, in one of the few times Senator Obama didn’t vote “present”, he voted against raising the debt ceiling, saying that having to raise the debt ceiling signified a failure of leadership.
Oops.
elissa (5aefd1) — 4/11/2011 @ 5:30 pmThat assumes honest reporting from broadcast network media, national daily newspapers, regional daily newspapers, and national weekly newsmagazines.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 4/11/2011 @ 7:01 pmReally? Care to explain exactly how that works? What exactly is it that rich people get from the government that poor people don’t? It seems to me that the super-rich get less from the government than ordinary people do, because they hire their own security people rather than relying on the government to protect them. And their lives are not worth more than those of poor people, so the benefit they get from being defended from, say, terrorist attacks is exactly the same as what poor people get. In general I would guess the benefit they get goes up in rough proportion to their income, so a flat tax rate is justified, but certainly not more than that. I don’t understand how even the present high tax rates on the rich can be justified, let alone higher ones.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/11/2011 @ 11:17 pmOf course military spending has vastly increased over that of the ’90s; because in the ’90s we vastly underspent on defense, with the results we all saw. We’re at war now, and will be for the forseeable future. And conducting that war is what the federal government is for. National defense is pretty much its only legitimate purpose. So how you can justify cutting the defense budget much is beyond me.
The jihadis aren’t going to go away just because we have a budget crisis. Fighting them isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity. This is not discretionary spending. This is like paying for a necessary operation; you don’t get a choice, and you just have to find the money elsewhere.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/11/2011 @ 11:22 pmMilhouse, when you said:
Really? Care to explain exactly how that works? What exactly is it that rich people get from the government that poor people don’t? It seems to me that the super-rich get less from the government than ordinary people do.
————————————————–
I think it is apparent that the rich across the board do not benefit from government funds, that being said it all depends on who your are.
GM, GE, large unions, banks and insurance companies.If you look at what the federal reserve has gushed out in cash to foreign banks and such it is all too clear that those who rub elbows with the high and mighty leaders of our country “benefit greatly” from either tax payer monies or are forgiven on not paying one dime in taxes.
I feel we are still stuck in a perpetual political game where neither side is serious or at the very least where the Republicans are still curled up in a fetal position, terrified on how they will be branded by the media for carrying out what needs to be done.
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:19 amWe shall see on the debt limit fight, I sadly see that fight going pretty much the way of the budget fight, hollow, damaging and far short of what logically needs to be done for the sake of politics and politicians.
Companies and unions weren’t the topic. Rich people were.
JD (4a42c9) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:38 amhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/12/obama-dodges-budget-cuts-favorite-programs/
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:53 amJD, the people running these companies and unions are for the most part very wealthy individuals with political connections.The fact that the fed had secretly funneled trillions of dollars to these entities which are privately held companies for the most part cannot be viewed as off topic.
I mean seriously, can we ignore Immelt and GE not paying a nickel in taxes while the guy is working for the administration and view it as anything less than the good old boy system run on the backs of the American taxpayer?
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:01 amAnd as a semi off topic item that melds with this good old boy deal, look at the waivers being tossed out left and right to unions and companies to avoid the “law” of the Obama insurance bill and who has been denied and why on these waivers?
It all reeks to high heaven, it all effects our debt, it’s all basically on topic IMHO.
Libertard was talking about the rich people that make more than $250K per household getting more from the government than they contribute. You are talking about leftist crony politics. It is an apples to elephants comparison. I am just tired of watching this issue get demagogued by the standard class warfare rhetoric, and the politics of envy.
JD (822109) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:38 amOh I get it JD. Thanks for saying so.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:41 amWe can never be Greece, we print our own currency. Leftist should not be allowed within 50 miles of the nation’s checkbook.
JD (dd4e87) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:02 amhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in_budget_wars_the_gop_demands_the_impossible/2011/04/11/AF31kPMD_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
This is what we can expect from the Leftists.
JD (dd4e87) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:06 amYou can’t even work around that level of stupidity,
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:12 am“JD, the people running these companies and unions are for the most part very wealthy individuals with political connections.”
justavoter – It really depends on the corporations, doesn’t it? It sounds like you are not very familiar with how they work if you think they all are heavily politically connected.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:21 amDaleyrocks, I’m not trying to say that all large corps have political ties, I am saying there are a selected few individuals who are sucking taxpayer cash out of the coffers or simply not paying anything who “are” directly connected to the head honchos running the country, in Immelt’s case, he is having direct imput.
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:48 amImmelt, Soros, anyone who runs bogus organizations like ACORN, endless and useless government programs that waste billions upon billions of dollars to stupid companies, green companies for instance that turns out to be a friend of a leader who’s company consists of 2 people, a bedroom office and a telephone that in the end, produces nothing.Add all of that up and we have some non serious politicians running what is more than likely a theatrical budget cutting show for public consumption.
Then there is the Fed, the wonderful Fed that when they ran out if cash funnel to foreign entities, they simply fire up the presses and run them night and day with the direct intention of manipulating our currency, exactly like China.
We are in serious trouble and I ‘m convinced that without our leaders running on serious convictions then the future is worse than bleak.I’m holding out hope that they buck up, we will see.
Justa, none of that is the point. You seem to be saying that all this cronyism is OK, so long as the recipients pay more taxes!
The claim is that the rich get more from the government, so it’s fair to make them pay more. Let’s take those famous rich people, Charles and David Koch. They make, let’s suppose, 100 times what you and I make; and the claim is that they benefit, say, 500 or 1000 times more than we do, so it’s fair for them to pay not just 100 times more taxes than we do (which would be a flat rate tax), but 500 or 1000 times. And I would simply like to know what exactly they get from the government that you and I don’t.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:15 pmIf justa has a problem with Rich People, especially Well Connected Rich People, then he should have no problem in supporting a Means-Test for Social Security and Medicare;
AD-RtR/OS! (27769e) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:38 pmor, does he advocate supporting the Sr. & Jr. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffett, etc, through his payroll tax contributions?