E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRepublicans are ready to ram through the House an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget that showcases their deficit-cutting plan for revamping Medicare and slicing everything from food stamps to transportation while rejecting President Barack Obama's call to raise taxes on the rich.
The blueprint by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was headed for all but certain House passage Thursday, mostly along party lines. It faces a demise that is just as sure in the Democratic-run Senate, which plans to ignore it, but the battle remains significant because of the clarity with which it contrasts the two parties' budgetary visions for voters.
Republicans were focused on sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats wanted and were proposing to lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks. Obama and Democrats were ready to boost taxes on families making above $250,000 and on oil and gas companies, add spending for roads and schools and cull more modest savings from domestic programs.
"They're choosing the next election over the next generation," Ryan said, deriding Democrats' plans as far too timid. He added, "If we don't tackle these fiscal problems soon, they're going to tackle us as a country."
Recommended: White House defends solicitor general's performance before court
Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually. But they said it needed to be done in a more balanced way, with rich and poor alike sharing the load.
"It's a path to greater prosperity — if you're already wealthy," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, top Democrat on the Budget panel, mocking the "Path to Prosperity" title Ryan has given his document. "Because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else."
In a pair of preliminary votes expected Thursday, conservatives were offering their own proposal with deeper spending cuts and far faster deficit-reduction than the GOP plan, claiming to balance the budget in just five years. Democrats were pushing a measure featuring pumped-up spending for education and new tax credits for companies creating jobs and raising wages, while claiming savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, government waste and reductions in farm payments.
Both were destined to be defeated.
Underscoring the prickly partisan gulf over how to tackle the budget's drastic imbalances, the House late Wednesday on a 382-38 vote easily shot down a compromise, bipartisan deficit-cutting plan by moderates of both parties that mingled tax increases with spending cuts.
The measure was modeled roughly on a package produced by Obama's deficit-reduction commission. The commission's plan drew praise from prominent deficit foes but was treated coolly by Obama and congressional leaders of both parties.
The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama's plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs.
Congress' budget is a nonbinding road map that suggests tax and spending changes that lawmakers should make in separate, later legislation.
Particularly with voters deciding control of the White House and the Capitol in November, the two parties are sure to stalemate each other's budgetary priorities until after the election.
The House GOP budget would cut spending by $5.3 trillion more over the next decade than Obama's would — out of more than $40 trillion that would still be spent during that period. It envisions repeal of the president's health care overhaul and sets a course for deep reductions for highway and rail projects, research and aid to college students and farmers while easing planned defense cuts.
It also would cut taxes by $2 trillion more than the president over that time, leaving Republicans seeking about $3.3 trillion in deeper deficit reduction than Obama.
Drawing the most political heat was Ryan's plan for Medicare, the $500 billion-a-year health insurance program for older Americans that all agree is growing so fast that its future financing is shaky. Both parties know that seniors vote in high numbers and care passionately about the program.
Republicans would leave the plan alone for retirees and those near retirement, letting the government continue paying much of their doctors' and hospital bills.
For younger people, Medicare would be reshaped into a voucher-like system in which the government would subsidize people's health care costs, which Republicans say would drive down federal costs by giving seniors a menu of options that would compete with each other. Democrats say government payments won't keep up with the rapid inflation of medical costs, leaving many beneficiaries struggling to afford the care they need.
"It ends the Medicare guarantee," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of Ryan's budget.
"This plan doesn't end the Medicare guarantee," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "Arithmetic does. Unless we change something, unless we put it on a solvent footing, the Medicare guarantee is gone."
Republicans would turn Medicaid, the nearly $300 billion-a-year federal-state health insurance program for the poor, into a grant that states could use as they wish. They also would trim its growth by $800 billion over the next decade.
Leave a Comment:
And the tax payers time and money is wasted yet again.
The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them.
So not one single Democrat including Hoyer, Pelosi and the entire CBC sided with this President because they were afraid of his budget. Must not have been a realistic budget!!
BTW - didn't Harry Reid do the same thing in the Senate on other issues - i.e. force a vote to embarrass the other side? This is where the politics has gotten us. Don't do anything but try and embarrass the other side. I agree with ZColoradan - And the tax payers time and money is wasted yet again.
Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually.
Their massive spending and failure to pass a budget is just a smoke screen to hide their fiscal conservatism.
SI
"Republicans are ready to ram through the House an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget that showcases their deficit-cutting plan for revamping Medicare and slicing everything from food stamps to transportation while rejecting President Barack Obama's call to raise taxes on the rich."
You know, if you start an article like that you might not really get a dialog. A lot of people read the first line/paragraph and decide what the article says, so maybe MSNBC could afford to start out a bit more non-partisan.
The interesting part is that yesterday the House voted 414-0 against President Obama's proposed budget (that INCLUDES all of the democrats). Not just mean old Republicans shooting down the poor President's good intentions. How about taking the yellow out of journalism MSNBC? Dialog is a good thing.
@JoeNY, what do you expect from MSDNC? It's the best source for the Democrats' talking points and not much else.
If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Your traffic only helps them.
Best way to punish them? Don't go to their site. But of course, you wouldn't ever do that.
"Republicans were focused on sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats wanted and were proposing to lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks" Interesting..how do you balance the USA budget ..yet hand out big tax breaks for the wealthyy ? Answer...cut out any funds to anyone other than the wealthy. As for.."unspecified tax breaks" Would be more honest to have this all in writing rather than in promises that we all know the republicans will not follow..
Somebody with a conservative and reasonable mind has to stay on here at MSN to help educate the poor souls who ONLY get there news here. It is a service we do and we do without expectation of pay for the valuable "alternative view" we provide to an audience who is literally clueless due to a daily consumption of MSNBC, CNN, and the network evening news.
I just checked to see what was voted on yesterday and If the house voted yesterday on the budget why isnt it in the official docket ?
Please use facts.
At least they won't waste my tax dollars on bloated unnecessary (except for keeping funding to Democrat candidates) budget items.
We all know the Ryan budget will go down. But it will nail republicans to the wall who vote for it. It is the beginning of the end of Medicare as they move to try to privatize it. And we can't forget the same old, same old - tax cuts to the top. The trickle down is a failure, but they have nothing else.
Has anyone actually read this budget?
Let's cover the high points:
It would increase spending from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022. That is a $1.3T increase over 10 years! The proposal that Republicans backed away from last Fall would have cut $4T over those same 10 years! That was unacceptable to Republicans then but an increase like this now is?
It wouldn’t balance the budget for 28 years. It only took 8 years for Republicans to blow out the budget, why the hell should it take 30 to rein it in?
It exempts defense from scheduled sequestration cuts. Defense is already scheduled to be cut by some $450 billion under the current 10-year budget caps. The sequester would cut an additional 10% from the national security budget in 2013 and roughly another 10% in 2014. This alone represents more than $1T increase in Defense spending over the next 10 years.
The current six income tax brackets are replaced with two—and the top bracket pays only 25 percent on their income, as opposed to 35 percent now. That’s a $2 trillion decrease in tax revenue for America’s top earners over the next ten years. But Ryan's plan calls for an increased revenue goal of 18 percent. That’s $5 trillion in new revenue over current levels needed over 10 years. Where is this $7T combined revenue increase going to come from?
I think we need to tell Republicans to go back and try again!
Nothing, NOTHING more unhonorable walks american soil than these hypocritical phony racist corporate bought republicans. The dysfunction they have and are bringing to american politics is worse than any event in our countries history. The unwarranted polarization brought into our daily lives by republicans is the biggest crime on this planet. One way or the other they will pay a price, and they know it. I say they should pay it as soon as we can possibly make it happen. That way, our children can see how honor works instead of how shamefulness works.
If you want to be really depressed go look at this chart:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
and then add up the deficit dollars that came from wars and tax cuts.
I'm sorry to those of you who adamantly disagree with me, but at this point any plan that calls for "increased revenue" in conjunction with tax cuts doesn't pass the smell test. If the supply side economic theory is accurate model of the American economic system then we should be fat, dumb, and happy at this point. How many of you feel fat, dumb, and happy? (ok, strike the dumb part - how may of you feel fat and happy?)
The house republicans live in alternate reality from the rest of us. No deficit cutting just wealthy individual's tax rates.
Those words don't combine, conservative and reasonable are like oil and water.
Obama has done the impossible...twice now! He got the entire Senate to agree that his 2012 Budget last year sucked - 97-0 against...and now he got the House to agree that is 2013 Budget sucks - 414-0 against.
He is the Messiah! No one has ever, ever accomplished this in the history of Congress. The "Do Nothing" Congress totally agreed on one thing, twice! That our President is a complete and utter bafoon when it comes to economics and this country's fiscal health!!!
BTW, what is a reasonable tax rate for successful people? Right now, it's 40% on EVERY DOLLAR for federal taxes (income plus medicare)...then state taxes, upwards to 10% in many states...so, can we agree that 50% of ones income is actually enough?
And, in terms of capital gains, that money has already been taxed at either the personal or corporate level, then the governemnt, at no risk, gets another 15% (so again, close to 50% tax rate).
Isn't that enough? Isn't that fair? Shouldn't our governement live within it's means when it is taking 50% of someone's income at the highest earning rate? I say yes...
The Republicans wanted vouchers for schools to get around integration. They want to privatize Social Security so they could fleece the public with shady financial schemes. And now they want vouchers to perpetuate the unfairness in medical treatment. You know as well as I that putting people at the mercy of private insurance will do nothing to reduce the cost, to the contrary, costs would go up to the level of highest profits.
Sister and Brother American: The republicanCrimeCartel is trying to push through this "austerity" bill which is on the backs of We Tax Paying Americans. This EVIL group is trying to intimidate US at the gas pumps as their republicanCrimeCartelOilIndustrySOLDIERS increase the price of gas to $5.00 per/Gallon. Look at "their boy" MittTaxPittanceRommel, who paid 13% on an EZ Payout of $45,000,000 as WE TaxPaying Americans Paid his $8,000,000 TaxBill. They are trying to eliminate medicare and Stuff YOUR SocialSecurity Money into their pockets as they convert America Into an Indentured System. How would You like to workHARD for $3.00 perDay? While MittTaxPittanceRommel has his In-House Car Elevator bring his Lamborghini Diablo, $375,000Sports Car to him so He can go to the doctor for a sore thumb and use his EXCELLENT EVERYTHING HealthCare Plan We TaxPayers paid for.
The Fact that America, The most advanced country on earth, DOES NOT have An American Universal HealthCare Plan to take care of her People, While Israel has One Of THE Best Plans In The World Which Is Paid for By We American Taxpayers Is A NATIONAL DISGRACE.....
MORE TO COME.......We Hope
Sofdude,
Washington D.C. had a voucher program in place that the Obama administration got rid of when they got into office. This program was a benefit to the citizens of D.C. who are predominantly African-American.
Hear Hear!
Okay, now everyone sing-a-long to the song by the Who, Won't Get Fooled Again -- "Meet the new budget. Same as the old budget." Back to the article...
So, for all you right-wingers, do you have a reading and comprehension problem? The GOP/TP wants to cut a range of things like things--many good things like transportation, things that benefit the working class including ending Medicare as we know it--in order to cut taxes. Not just any taxes, but to cut the taxes for the RICH, not YOU. And because they want even more tax cuts for the rich, this budget does not reduce the deficit.
What is wrong with you people?!
And now they want vouchers to get around Separation of Church and State. Christian school prayer, or teaching Christian creationism is not allowed in tax-funded public schools operated by the state. But they religious-Right don't want to foot the bill themselves to send their kids to parochial schools, so they hatched the voucher scheme to get use of tax dollars. Now they want to destroy the Dept. of Education and public schools all together to force their beliefs on the nation.
The voucher scam, or state's rights -- These are all ways to privatize everything for them and their rich 1% cronies, and they use fear, hate, and lies (religion) to get their base fired up about non-existent threats as a guise for their agenda. In reality, every man, woman and child for his/herself is a nightmare, not a vision for future generations.
When Paul Ryan and his ilk talk, put your hands over your ears and sing to block out their crazy talk.
True,
Everything has to be cut as the deficits are so large. On the taxes the cut in the rate is tied to the closing of loopholes which is something you should be in favor of. They are also proposing means testing for Medicare so the rich may not be eligible for benefits which again is something you should be in favor of.
Nowhere is anybody saying to end Medicare, they are saying to reform it as that is going to be the largest part of the deficit in a few years. Now let us look at the Democratic plan to reduce Medicare:
It is above
What song were the House Democrats singing when they voted against the Presidents budget proposal, No Balls at All by Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds?
Paul, an excellent post. I wonder how many here don't really understand how screwed up Obama is. I do doubt they will truly ever understand. They are off playing "this party /that party" games blaming the other side.
But it is clear now that even the Congressional Democrats don't like him. They were only excited a couple of years ago that they got a "Democratic" President. Now. they know that they have to pay for what they got and it hurts.
But the good thing about how screwed BHO is, is that he will be gone (hopefully sooner than later) and we can then go back to trying to fix the damage that he has done.
And many here will quietly hide knowing how ignorant their comments have been. Unfortunately, many still won't have a clue.
Democrats and Republicans in an unusual bipartisan, joined forces to REJECT OBAMA spending proposal. We know that is Obama the responsible for the permanent disagreement between Democrats and Republicans leading the congress to a complete disaster, with is devised character showing during his whole Administration.
True Patriot -- Turn that music way up! I want everyone to hear it.
Paul, name me one person who pays 40% in federal taxes. The current tax rate for the top bracket is 35%, and can easily be reduced to less than 25% if one has patience and some good tax lawyers. Few if any Americans pay 50%, and that is only because they live in a state with a pretty high tax.
As for the voting measures, the reason why Democrats didn't vote was not necessarily because they opposed it, but because they didn't want to seem fiscally insane, as the GOP would imply. I wouldn't necessarily vote for Obama's bill because I would probably want to work on a better one, but I'd rather have that than this bull@!$%# proposed by Ryan.
Yes, I am for government living within its means. I think everyone is. But we cannot go into strict austerity with our economic recovery being so fragile, and we definitely cannot put the entire burden on domestic programs that serve the middle and lower class while giving $2 trillion in wasteful tax cuts that America DOES NOT NEED. Nor do I think the wealthy (or any taxpayer, for that matter) should get off scot-free. We all need to make some sacrifices: higher taxes, smaller defense budgets, and reformed entitlement programs included. But we do not need privatized or decentralized programs that will suck the life from seniors and the poor while giving a huge fat check to the wealthy, who as it is need to be taxed more. So @!$%# the Ryan budget; @!$%# cuts to domestic spending; @!$%# privatizing entitlements, and @!$%# tax cuts to the damn 1%!!!!!!!!!
Oh and I'd take being called a tax and spend liberal as a compliment. It's a helluva lot better than being a borrow and spend conservative.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Unfortunately, Jerry, the GOP isn't intent on cutting or reforming Medicare. They are intent on privatizing it. This would give seniors a voucher that will shrink in the face of burgeoning health costs. It essentially destroys Medicare as we know and establishes a Medicare benefit program for the insurance companies.
And as for the deficit, I agree that things need to be cut. The two things I say keep intact is domestic spending to education and social services, and the tax code. While the tax cut is tied to the loophole reform, there is no specification on which loopholes will be cut OR whether the tax cuts will be revenue neutral. In fact, the Ryan budget cuts taxes by $2 trillion in the debunked notion that cutting taxes will actually increase revenues. So no, not everything needs to be cut. Taxes should not be cut; they should be raised, on everyone, but especially for the rich, who have benefited immensely from the failed trickle-down economic policy. Education spending should not be cut; it should be increased to benefit my generation. Social safety nets should not be cut; it should be bolstered to help support the struggling poor and middle-class Americans.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Imagine that, Even the left are admitting that Obama is fiscally insane
From the article:
"The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama's plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs."
Not even a single vote. not one. Again.
Every budget Obama has proposed has failed to get even one single democratic vote.
Republicans forced a vote to embarass them? Really?
Why would the democrats be embarrased to vote for The Presidents budget? Anybody?
Per the article, they were "concerned republicans would use campaign ads to link democrats who supported Obama's plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs"
Translation - They know that the people of the U.S. don't want these programs, that's what makes them "unpopular".
Lol at Obama. How can you follow a budget if you don't pass one?
How can you budget your money with no budget?
FYI for the ignorant, the budget CANNOT BE FILIBUSTERED!
Even though Obama's own spokesman tried to claim so on national TV. Speaks highly of his qualifications, huh?
Can anyone tell me how Obama will follow a budget if he doesn't have one?
Obamas budgets have actually reached a vote twice.
Senate 97-0 against.
House 414-0 against.
Total = FAIL.
(I quoted the article using "Obama's budget" because I was quoting. Anybody with any english skills, which excludes Obamas lapdogs at msnbc, knows it should be "Obamas budget". It is clearly NOT a contraction. I guess they're too busy spinning to employ ACTUAL journalists.)
You want a balanced budget in 3 years? Vote Ron Paul.
Everybody else is just more of the same.
Obama is not fiscally insane; however, the Democrats didn't want to seem fiscally insane, because many people blame Obama (unjustly) for increasing spending when in fact spending has decreased under his watch.
If you want fiscally insane, look at the past 30 years of conservative supply-side economics (particularly the Bush decade, as I call it) and the ridiculous Ryan budget, with its oxymoronic name "The Path to Prosperity." More like the "Path of Prosperity" for the 1%. With all the technology and knowledge and reason in our nation, it is astounding how so many people, including those in power, think that cutting taxes for the wealthy can benefit the little guy. Maybe to a point, but this has been dragged on for too long. I want to start a movement to DESTROY trickle-down economics.
Obama isn't fiscally insane; but some people think he is, even though spending has actually decreased under Obama.
What is fiscally insane is the past 30 years of right-wing supply-side economics (with particular emphasis on the Bush era) and the oxymoronically-named "Path to Prosperity." More like the "Path to European Austerity."
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Freshieeee....
Bush spent too much. Bush involved us in useless wars. Bush was bankrupting the country.
Obama spends too much. Obama involves us in useless wars. Obama is bankrupting the country.
I hated what Bush did.
I hate Obama doing more of what Bush did.
Obama could call home the troops anytime he wants to.
Ron Paul 2012. Stop the wars. Restore fiscal sanity.
Unfortunately, Obama could not cut spending during the recession or during the beginning of the recovery, as that could send the economy back into the red. While our involvement in Libya is in question (I say it wasn't useless, but I still have to be wary considering the past 30 years of frivolous foreign policy), Libya was a win for the US because it bolstered our view in the world, was a crowning victory for multilateral foreign policy, and established a friendly government in Tripoli at little cost to America.
Obama is not bankrupting the country. The Bush tax cuts and the recession are. Those are the top two drivers of our debt. Technically Obama cannot call home the troops because he needs congressional approval AND it would undermine our operations in Afghanistan, even though I think the war was misguided to begin with.
And Ron Paul won't restore fiscal sanity. He may balance the budget, but his spending cuts will come on the backs of many Americans, and he REFUSES to raise taxes. Fiscal sanity is raising taxes and cutting spending in this fiscal crisis; all Ron Paul will do is carry the right-wing line. Ron Paul isn't any different from the rest of the GOP, except he is a bit less interventionist than they are. Other than that, his fiscal and domestic policies are either the same or even more radical than the GOP itself.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Freshie, your post is full of falsehoods!
I'll start with the most obvious - "Technically Obama cannot call home the troops because he needs congressional approval AND it would undermine our operations in Afghanistan, even though I think the war was misguided to begin with."
5 pinochios! As Commander in Chief, Obama does NOT need congressional approval to bring home the troops.
" all Ron Paul will do is carry the right-wing line. Ron Paul isn't any different from the rest of the GOP, except he is a bit less interventionist than they are"
Again, totally false. Why do you think the gop is trying to thwart his election at every turn? Ron Paul is NOTHING like the rest of the republican party. That's why I love him so much. You should really read more about that.
"And Ron Paul won't restore fiscal sanity."
Again, false. The silver in a 1935 silver dime would buy 11 gallons of gas today. True story bro.
Listen, this is a complex issue, too much to get into here, but it's NOT crazy. We were on the gold standard until Nixon took us off of it in 1970. The main point is you need to read about the Austrian school of economic though vs the Kenyesian one. (The third school of economic thought is Kondatrieff, and God help us all if HE is right!)
To oversimplify a complex issue, is it more crazy to have a govt issue currency whose value is based on debt to its citizens, or a currency based on real value that that govt holds?
"Obama is not bankrupting the country. The Bush tax cuts and the recession are."
Wow, that one is a whopper! First of all, the "Bush tax cuts" expired. There are no more Bush tax cuts. They are now Obama's tax cuts. Just like Bushs patriot act expired, and Obama got a new one passed, which he signed. It is now the Obama patriot act.
Secondly, Obama IS in fact bankrupting our country. He has increased our debt more than all previous presidents combined, INCLUDING Bush.
You know, a lot of people wouldn't mind a solution that included tax increases. As long as there were cuts included. We're not going to just keep giving them more and more to spend!
The problem is, every time Obama tries to raise new revenue, it is ALWAYS so that he can spend more. It is NEVER so that we can pay down our debt. And THAT'S why nobody wants to give him more money. Including apparently the democrats (97-0, 414-0)
Until we get our spending under control - which CANNOT be done without a budget - we will never have any solution to the problem.
As far as pouring the blood of our youth and our tax money into foriegn hellholes for no apparent reason - Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, and Kenya. All have US soldiers on the ground. All except Afghanistan were started under......wait for it..... Obama! There are more, but that's enough for now. And of course, there are other, more secret deployments.
Face it. Everything you hate Bush for, Obama does it more.
Okay, Alil, name me one time when Ron Paul EVER offered to raise taxes. Tell me when. Also tell me by how much and the cuts he offered alongside.
He also supports dismantling 5 departments, among them Education, which will cost hundreds of thousands of people their jobs and will reduce funding for things like education and loans for clean energy. We need those things, and so destroying them won't do any good in the long term. Eliminating waste is one thing; dismantling departments wholesale is another.
And the Bush tax cuts didn't expire; they were continued under Obama in order to extend unemployment benefits. They were crafted by Bush, and so they still are named the Bush tax cuts. We name things like legislation or policies after the people who crafted it; that's why we still refer to the Monroe Doctrine as the Monroe Doctrine.
Ron Paul is not in line with the GOP on foreign policy, but he goes farther to the right on domestic policies. He believes that the damn free market should be left to itself. I think that's a croc, and that is one of the reasons why many people think he is unrealistic.
And moving us back to the gold standard is much harder than you think. The value of the U.S. dollar would rely on gold production, which can fluctuate violently. That leaves no room for a central government to use efficient monetary policy when necessary. And when a recession strikes, we won't be able to use monetary policy (which is the fastest stimulus) to help the economy.
You also forget to realize that most of the debt increased during Obama's administration was caused by the RECESSION. When a recession occurs revenue goes down and spending goes up, understand??? Obama couldn't balance the budget during a recession; FDR tried it in 1937 and got stuck in another recession. And yes, I know many people would want a balanced deficit agreement. And just about every one offered had more spending cuts than tax increases!!! I think we can establish that. And how the hell do you know that Obama is raising revenues simply to spend more??? Give me proof. And if he is, he is targeting that money at things like infrastructure and education, which are in need of funds.
And tell me, since when have U.S. troops been in Somalia or Syria??? I can guarantee that there are no American soldiers in Syria, and the only soldiers I think are in Somalia are military advisers.
As for Ron Paul, he may balance the budget, but he will do it on the backs of working-class Americans. Tell me how cutting spending on domestic programs like education is smart???? I don't think the states can manage education without leaving it at the edge of the cliff every time a deficit comes, so that is why the federal government is in education. Where are the tax increases??? Where is the prioritization of spending???? He may cut spending across the board, but a lot of the spending will be on domestic programs. He never offered to raise taxes; he would even extend the costly Bush tax cuts, which add $3.8 trillion to our future deficits. Give me an example of his fiscal sanity; and that includes tax increases...
Face it; Ron Paul's ideas aren't realistic. Cutting education will simply hurt the economy in the long-term. And the states are not very good at maintaining the bulk of social services, as they are required to have a balanced budget that requires spending cuts and/or tax increases, especially on education.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Ahhh Freshieee..... How can you support a man when you are so ignorant about what he is doing? I'll write a more coherent response later, check back, right now I have to get ready to leave work for the night. Google our troop deployments if you get bored waiting.
Truepatriot - you need everyone to hear this - they don't care about this country, they don't care about the budget- all they care about is whether they win or lose... That's what I want for my representative...
OK, freshiee, got a little time to respond....
First, Ron Paul won't raise taxes. In fact, he wants to eliminate the IRS completely! How awesome would that be.
See, the truth is, we spend billions of dollars overseas in foriegn aid and military adventurirism. Money we don't need to be spending, and money we shouldn't be spending.
The federal govt takes in a great deal of money through other taxes besides just income tax. Think cigarettes and gasoline, for instance, where nearly half of what people pay is taxes. And no, Ron Paul doesn't want to raise those taxes either.
The gold standard - you're just wrong. The dollar will not depend on gold production, and you are oversimplifying anyways - Ron Paul wants to move our currency back to being based on all precious metals - not just gold, but also silver, platinum, copper, etc. This will insure a sound currency based on actcual value, compared to what we have today, which is basically worthless paper representing future tax revenues, also in worthless paper. See, the paper has no value backing it other than future debt to me and you. So everytime the fed fires up the printing presses, the dollar in your pocket becomes worth less. Printing money isn't out of thin air. The value we have is the value we have, and the dollar represents them, you have simply devalued the existing dollars by 50%. This is one reason gas prices are so high. The petrodollar. See oil is traded in us dollars. If the dollar is woth less, than you need more dollars to purchase the same value. In other words, higher gas prices.
This devaluing of the currency is intentional. If you're interested, you can read more about it here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/
As far as being limited in our ability to respond to the economy, well first off that is a kenyesian approach, and historically it hasn't worked. In fact, stimulating the economy in kenyesian ways has historically been shown to lengthen the recessions and delay or severely slow down the recovery. Kenyesian proponents always claim it would have been worse if they hadn't done such things, but since such things were done, we can never know the effect if they hadn't been. All we can do is look at historical data from previous downturns where stimulus was used vs when it was not. Kapeesh?
Perhaps you might be interested in what Austrian economics really is?
http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp
As far as Obama raising revenue just to spend more, check his record. Look at what he has proposed. Never a paying down of the debt. Not once.
As far as the wars, you really need to read more. If you are going to support a man so avidly, you should at least know what he is doing.
He took most US troops out of Iraq, but he sent in 15k contractors. That's mercenaries, Xe, formerly blackwater, a few other companies but they are the main player.
He has expanded the troop levels in Afghanistan, despite the fact that he can call them all home anytime he wants to.
He ordered troops into Libya, we have Special Forces there now.
He encouraged the Arab uprsing in Egypt, we now have the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of the country where we build the most advanced battletank on the planet, the M1 Abrams. We have troops there.
He sent troops to Uganda last week, supposedly to look for KONY, but KONY hasn't been there in years, although huge oil deposits were discovered in Uganda just before Christmas.
He ordered troops into Kenya, to launch hostage rescue operations. The mission was then excpanded and more troops were sent, nobody knows what the mission is there now.
He sent troops into Somalia, we are staging to raid "Pirate Bases" there, the first attacks may have already occured.
We have Special Forces supporting and training the Syrian rebels in Syria.
We have troops in Yemen who have actually participated in crushing the uprising thier, fighting alongside the Saudis.
We have troops in 130 countries right now including bases in non hostile areas like Germany or Japan. Obama wants to expand that and build a "Ring of Fire" of bases around the Pacific Rim.
Face it Freshiee.... everything I (we?) hated Bush for, Obama is doing it, and he's doing it times ten.
Do you even know what the Dept of Education does? 115 Billion dollars last year, and NOT ONE CENT WENT TOWARDS EDUCATING CHILDREN!!!!!
Dept of energy, they have military troops assigned to them, did you know that?
Dude, it goes on and on. You need to look into it, I can't write it all here, and anyways I have to go get ready for work.
Knowledge is the enemy of those in power.
Only Ron Paul sppeaks truth to power.
It's sad, but my country is rejecting the one thing that might, I say MIGHT be able to fix her. There's been a lot of damage, and it won't be easy to clean up, but it might not be too late.
If RObamaney gets in, we're most likely headed for bankruptcy. Obama will then use the crisis to limit our freedoms even more. Kondatrieff winter, man, terrible times.
Scary times man, scary times. But hey, don't worry, Obama knows best, right? Why worry?
Um, Alil, in case you didn't know I want taxes to be raised. So saying that Ron Paul won't do that doesn't really help....
I can go for reducing the military budget; I've even stated that in my own deficit reduction plans. But foreign aid is barely 1.5% of the budget. I don't think we need to worry about that.
And yes, the value of the dollar will rely on the production of precious metals, because they will increase the gold supply, and thus affect the value of the dollar. And FWI, the Fed doesn't print money. The Treasury does, and only to replace old currency. The Fed lowers interest rates (which allows banks to borrow money more easily from the Fed) and buys securities from banks, giving them money to loan out. And the reason why the Fed allows inflation is because they think its safer than going into deflation. And for your inflation argument; usually inflation is balanced by increases in wages. The more money people have; the more they can afford to spend. And I highly doubt that the value of the dollar remained the same when we had the gold standard.
As for Obama's spending policies, he has advocated an increase in spending; DOMESTIC spending. He advocates spending on things like education (which whether you like it or not is short on funds) and rebuilding our roads and bridges as an economic stimulus, and how do you know that all of increased revenues will go to spending??? Care to show any proof???
We know he sent troops to Afghanistan; it is known as the surge, which was effective in beating down the Taliban. And care to show proof that he sent troops to Syria??? As for Somalia, that was the Navy, which was stationed to hold off continuing Somali pirate raids (remember the Maersk Alabama???).
I know we have troops in peaceful nations; we are currently slated to remove some troops from Europe as part as the defense cuts while prioritizing our defense power to the Pacific to counter the Chinese.
As for the Department of Education, give me one shred of proof that states that not one cent has gone to schools. And show me proof that the Department of Energy has troops stationed.
And yes, Ron Paul is admirable. But he's not going to fix America. Tell me how laying off hundreds of thousands of people and cutting spending for things like education and other domestic programs will help America??? And tell me how not raising taxes will help??? Cuts hurt the economy; you know it as well as I, and if you have to balance the budget you might as well increase taxes. Ron Paul has not proposed that; that is one of the reasons why I won't vote for him. I ain't voting for a guy who doesn't admit that we need tax increases. Ron Paul's plans are extreme, most people know that, and some can be very dangerous. Giving things back to the states doesn't necessarily make things better; it often makes things worse. And I know Obama doesn't know best; I'm not an Obama cultist. But I know he is the most rational of ALL the candidates (Ron Paul included), and that is why I trust him. I know he has made a lot of mistakes, but he's America's only hope. Ron Paul will only take this nation back to the 19th century; I don't want a small government. I don't want to live in a country that has a strict interpretation of the Constitution; why??? Because then our economy will collapse; we had loose regulation, low tax rates, and small government during the time of Teddy Roosevelt and the 1920s, and that led to the Great Depression. Small government will destroy this government as much as spending too much.
Obama Biden 2012
*sigh*.
If we take a Trillion dollars out of the economy in Govt spending, yes, it will lead to depression.
If we TRANSFER a Trillion dollars in spending AWAY from the govt, INTO consumer spending, everything picks up again.
Who do you trust to spend your money in the smartest way?
The Govt? Or...... You?
Gold production does not seem to be hurting the price of gold right now, does it?
As far as Obama's spending, he's spent more than all previous administrations combined. This is Known.
I'm not going to do your work for you, but I assure you, everytime Obama asks for more money, it is to spend on another of his hare-brained schemes like cash for clunkers or something. NEVER to pay down the debt. In fact, he and the republicans both are advocating for cutting increases to the budget, neither party is seriously adressing the debt issue. Like, I was planning to spend 3 trillion dollars MORE nest year than we did this year. Tell you what, I'll only spend ONE Trillion more next year than we did this year. LOOK! I "SAVED" TWO TRILLION! See, that's the kind of crap BOTH parties are talking about when they talk about cutting spending. NOBODY has spoken of actually paying off what we owe.
Obama says he wants domestic spending. He stands in front of a bridge in Michigan, speechifying away.
Meanwhile, the biggest bridge building project in the history of the U.S. is being built in San Francisco.....BY THE CHINESE!!!
It was built in China, and shipped over in sections, to be assembled here by Chinese workers, who live in a little factory town onsite, with factory dorms and a factory store, just like the good old days before Unions. Can you see the Hypocrisy? And in order to be able to buy foriegn steel for the project, they didn't use any Federal Funds! See, what they do is take the Federal funds and move them elswhere, while they use thier other money for the bridge project. They still take the Federal funds, but they get around it through budgetary tricks.
So I'm a little skeptical, with things like this going on, that the money will actually be spent for American workers to improve American roads and briges.
Especially since the last stimulus money didn't go there.
And what of the interest on that debt? And what if interest rates spike? Dude, we are so screwed!
We can either stop the govt from spending like drunken sailors now, in a controlled manner, or...
We can all just sit back and wait for the crash. Our choice as voters.
We don't need tax increases. We need to get our spending under control.
Ending the wars is an EXCELLENT way to start.
Also, the Fed does in fact authorize, or rather ORDER, the mint to print more dollars. Did you read the link from my previous post, about how the Fed has explicitly stated that they plan to devalue US currency by 33%? That means any interest you earn, any dividends, any growth in your 401k.....
It will all be stolen from you by The Fed.
Unless you're getting a ROI of over 33%, you aint making diddly squat.
How's that for fun!
Wow, someone has their priorities seriously messed up.
My thoughts exactly. How much further does the GOP wish to see America slide in the global scale on education? Cutting the amount of loans and PELL grants will keep many promising students from attending college. At a time when university costs are skyrocketing, they want to cut aid, while trying to defeat trimming the bloated defense budget.
At a time when our infrastructure is crumbling, they want to cut spending on roads and bridges and rail, yet refuse to ask the rich for a single penny more.
It's obvious who the GOP represents... and it will show at the polls.
These House republicans, led by Wisconsin's Paul Ryan, are akin to a swarm of ticks crawling along the underside of an animal. Always scouting for a fresh place to pierce, settle onto, and suck the lifeblood. With ticks, one would either pull 'em or posion 'em. These no account sons-a-bitches need to be pulled and squashed. They have proven their sorriness over and over. Only thing the country will ever realize from them is a national carcass.
Why didn't a single Representative vote for the Obama budget?
Yep, cut off the aid and the schools realize real quick that the easy money train is no longer thus forcing competition and lowering costs.
Everyone except for a liberal can see these common sense moves. Since when has throwing money at the problem ever helped?
We spend more per student than any other country so I do not think the answer is more money but more efficient money.
America's defense budget, $698 BILLION Dollars, was 43% of the WORLDS defense spending in 2011 and yet the Republicans want to stop the cuts that are due to kick in from the spending bill of last fall! This is unacceptable, we can't continue to be the worlds police force!
In case you haven't noticed, state budgets for education all over the country are being cut. California has laid of tens of thousands of educators since 2008. We cannot rely on the states to provide the majority of support for education. We need a more centralized system. Yes there are other problems, like the need for merit-based teacher pay and reform in the classroom, but funding is a major problem.
And university costs are increasing because of salaries, overhead, and the like. I personally do not know, but I highly doubt it is because of the school aid, and I highly doubt cutting the aid will cause costs to go down. Sorry mate, but common sense eludes the conservatives in this case, and in many others. Check the facts before spinning the truth.
Obama Biden 2012
The fact that Medicare and Medicaid cost so darn much is disturbing. Their costs are going up and up and up, and yet we are to believe Obamacare will be different, and budget neutral? Every time our government gets involved in healthcare, it seems the costs are far in excess of what it estimates originally. Democrats and Republicans need to cut the partisan garbage, and start working to get this country on the right foot. All I see happening now is a bunch of idiots trying to spend their way out of debt.
I just hope it doesn't take a revolution to finally get this government doing what is necessary. If a revolution is the answer, I hope it comes in the form of good people in our government releasing information that displays how their bosses are all on the take, and care only for their continued employment.
We need this country to get back to what made it great. The path we are currently on will just make us into a mega Greece.
What exactly was it that made this country great? Compared to a generation ago, health-care costs have escalated exponentially because of the costs of advanced diagnostics, advanced treatments, extension of lifespan through drug maintenance, research, and higher professional salaries. We've added 10 years to the average life expectancy since 1950 -AND- we've improved the quality of life senior citizens at the same time. Those changes come at a cost. The sad thing is that we can't have a real non-political discussion about what is a rational approach to health-care and what isn't - We either get declarations of "death panels" or an expectation of free health-care for all and nothing substantive in between.
Say we need to this country to get back to what made it great is like expecting the glory days of American manufacturing bootstrapping a blue-collar workforce into the middle class to be repeated when our cost of living prices us out of competitiveness. "Getting back to what made it great" isn't a solution, it is waxing reminiscently without being honest that the world and our expectations have changed. When the playing field is changed, your strateg has to change too.
Yes Don't Be Moronic!!! The Chinese Government S U B S I D I Z E S Their Industries to be VERY compete And We can to!!. That Means that these B@$T@RD republicanCrimeCartelSoldiers ESP Oil Industry WILL cooperate and help with government subsidizing and DROP their " I am a Distributor" role as we manufacture HERE instead of "OutSourcing" and being given TAX Deferrals..(NO TAXES) for the rich and their corporations. Ryan IS A CRIMINAL with "his" proposal, which Really Comes from the republicanCrimeCartelCapos and SOLDIERS...What Is REALLY Going to Happen??? The elction will be a victory for Prez O as THE Largest Landslide in American History AND the RepublicanCrimeCartelSoldiers,(MittTaxPittanceRommel,Ryan,THE BONER, Mitch Th'B!tch, TheVomitorium,TheGangrene and so many other Sociopaths) will try to Scuttle Our SocioEconomic Structure....In other Words An Armed Civil War, The cops Cannot stop with 40,000,000 guns in Americans hands. they will just switch sides. inevitable
Richard.....
Ron Paul Revolution.
There is only one candidate who isn't lying right to your face.
414-0 Really? Not one Democrat had enough of a pair to vote for it? Speaks volumes of the President's ineptitude and the House Democrats (lack of) fortitude.
And this right here speaks volumes on exactly what is wrong with this country. You have a compromise by moderates of both parties, and it's shot down by partisan dbags on both sides.
Why the hell should they vote for a budget that they disagree with? They would 'have a pair' if they meekly just voted for whatever horrible budget the Tea Party proposes?
Jake: Why did every Dem oppose the President's numbers? Why did the "compromise" gain only 38 votes?
The answer: We have bipartisan agreement that the budgets sucked!
Because all the GOP members have to sign that "no tax increase" pledge bullsh*t.
It's radical partisan politics that prevent compromises.
Ruken: Let me get this straight: The Dems opposed the President because the GOP signed a no tax increase pledge?
Wait til they vote on the Ryan budget. I can't wait. Anyone who votes for it will have to defend it, and there is just SO much to dislike. That alone could doom republicans in balanced districts. They are doubling down on the privatization of Medicare and tax cuts to the top.
I was talking about the compromise. The GOP opposed it because it had a tax increase and they have all signed that pledge to never increase taxes. The Dems opposed it for obviously some partisan reason of which I do not know.
In other words, politics as usual.
Ruken: Only 38 votes supported the "compromise" At the very least over 100 Democrats opposed it as well as the repubs. I think that speaks more to the lousy nature of both budgets than partisan compromise here.
Latin Teacher: Are you sure that you don't mean Greek? Obviously the vote was put forth as a trap for democrats. However, since the Dems are smarter than the Teapublicans, they didn't fall for it. Nice, but feeble-minded, try.
JCnGAM,
The vote was 414-0 against Obama's budget. If the Democrats were not falling for a trap, why didn't they vote "Present", as their fearless leader was so fond of doing, instead of voting against the bill?
The way the system is supposed to work is that the House passes the Ryan budget, then the Senate passes a budget, and the two sides meet in conference and hammer out a compromise. Given that the Senate has not proposed a budget in over three years it is impossible to get anything done.
You may not agree with the Ryan plan but at least he is being an adult and putting something out there knowing he is going to get criticized while the Democrats offer nothing.
Underscoring the prickly partisan gulf over how to tackle the budget's drastic imbalances, the House late Wednesday on a 382-38 vote easily shot down a compromise, bipartisan deficit-cutting plan by moderates of both parties that mingled tax increases with spending cuts.
-----------------------------------
Wasn't this the same 'our way or the highway' tactic that Dems were accused of when passing their Healthcare bill? Bipartisan support was brushed aside in favor of a budget proposal that contained tax cuts larger than the desired spending cuts. Tax relief for business and those at the top end of the income bracket (current range is 10% - 35% proposed range is 10% - 25%). Lower income individuals get no relief. So those that rely on Medicare / Medicaid for the bulk of their healthcare benefits get no relief on how to pay for their healthcare because their tax rates are staying constant. Higher costs due to required patient contribution with the same income. Regarding these block grants to the states to "use as they see fit"; are there requirements that they spend it on their constituent's healthcare needs first? What happens with what they don't spend? or are they allowed to, say, reduce state corporate tax rates (to lure business to them) and pay for the lost tax revenue with this block grant? Remember the Republican bailout of the banking and investment sector (you know the one pushed through as George Bush was walking out the door)? there were no restrictions on how that money was to be spent and look at the fallout of that decision. Hell, moderates in their own party realize that a combination of spending cuts and tax increases AND closing loopholes that currently exist (contrary to popular belief closing loopholes is NOT a tax increase). A majority is not a mandate. What the voting public has been complaining about for the past 3 years (Congress panders to a shrinking segment of our population) is going to continue as long as the majority, no matter how slight, listens more to its more vocal extremists instead of the bulk of its members.
The Democrats wanted a single-payer healthcare system. The individual mandate WAS the compromise.
In the end I think single payer or extending Medicare to all will have to be implemented. Republicans are really screwing themselves in the long run because that mandate (which was their idea in the first place) is the only thing that can bring down costs. Without it, expect more people to go without insurance, upping the costs for the rest of us (nice personal responsibility, teapubs) to the point there will be no other choice. The question is, how long and how many will have to suffer before it happens.
The level of fraud going on with Medicare (over $400 million a year iirc) currently is astounding. Extending it to all without cleaning it up would be a fiscal nightmare.
Ruken, that $400mil/year in fraud boils down to just over a dollar per person per year. I'd be glad to cover that 100x over if that means we can get Medicare for all.
Ruken, If Medicare paid the doctors a fair wage for their services, they wouldn't have to resort to padding the bill to get a fair wage.
Steve in CO
If the Democrats wanted single payer they should have put that together when they had the chance. There was nothing the Republicans could do about it. To blame it on anyone else but the President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is disingenuous at best.
The level of fraud going on with Medicare (over $400 million a year iirc) currently is astounding.
According to Wikipedia:
The Office of Management and Budget reported that $54 billion in "improper payments" were made to Medicare ($24B), Medicaid ($18B) and Medicaid Advantage ($12B) during FY 2009.
Steve in CO-
The Democrats said they wanted a single-payer healthcare system. However, thier wealthy donors in the insurance, pharma and hospital industries were afraid that would show how cheaply healthcare can actually be provided, and they would lose money. The individual mandate WAS the compromise that would gaurantee all three enjoyed a huge windfall of profits and new customers.
Fixed it for you!
There is an iceberg captain. Should we take evasive action? (Government), wake me in a few more years.... Be careful to asses your candidates wisely this coming year. The future you are about to save will be your OWN!
Not that this is in the same vein, but some of you may know that Detroit is in dire financial trouble. The Gov. of Michigan and the City council are working to get a deal on a consent agreement. When along comes Jesse Jackson, Activist (Thats his new title) saying that the Federal Gov bailed out banks and wall street...now they need to bail out Detroit. Can you imagine the line of Cities that want to be bailed out if the Fed decided to bail out Detroit to the tune of 300 Million or better.
I'm sure there's a few CA cities that'd be stepping up to the plate afterward.
Bailouts set a terrible precedent.
So Jolly.
Does it help Detroit more to have residents like you that profit from outsourcing local manufacturing jobs to China?
By the way, how's business? Your mandarin coming along nicely?
GM paying back the bailout loan and now posting record profits. Yup obviously that bailout didn't work.
"The House GOP budget would cut spending by $5.3 trillion more over the next decade than Obama's would — out of more than $40 trillion that would still be spent during that period. It envisions repeal of the president's health care overhaul and sets a course for deep reductions for highway and rail projects, research and aid to college students and farmers while easing planned defense cuts."
Cut infrastructure, cut higher education, cut food production, cut science, increase war. Got it.
It won't pass the senate. Just another waste of time and money by the Taliban
I'm tired of getting rammed.
Why do the Republicans pander to thier base so blatantly with these 'no way in hell are they going to pass in the Senate because they are so one-sided extremist right wing tea party' bills?
Have they completely forgotten that this country's political system works on comprimise? That it makes them look just as stupid as they claim the dems are when they do the same thing over and over and expect a different result? (Isn't that the definition of insanity)?
I am who their base is gong to be. Older teaparty members want no part of their ss and mc cut, so who are they pandering to? Their base is going to be nonexistent.
Exactly what I wondered. Ever look at the majority of Tea Partiers? They're seniors who say stupid things like 'don't let the government touch my Medicare'.Think they give a rat's a** about future generations? Medicare needs to be retained, but strengthened with higher taxes on the rich and higher co pays by recipients. The whole budget needs a balanced approach-less spending and higher taxes on millionaires.
David-
How much is enough taxes? Just curious...right now, it's 40% at the highest income for federal only on EVERY DOLLAR!! Capital gains is 15%, but that was already taxed at the personal or corporate level already? How about cutting money to Solyndra? How about sending less money to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? How about sending less money to Brazil to help with their oil exploration? How about less money to the Nevada Arts Festival? Why can't we cut what we don't need, and then shore up some of these things.
That's the Tea Party in a nutshell.. Why do you Dems always want to take more money from people that are actually successful, and 95% of them busted their tail to get there...why?
Yet Romney paid based on a percentage lower than 30%. Not to mention that many of our 1% exercises stocks and other income streams not governed by the income tax code.
While I am not in the 1%, I am in the top 25% and there are seminars I get invited to, to show me how to shelter my income from being taxed.
That 40% claim sounds good until you peel back the layers.
Their (The GOP) base is the 1%. The millionaires, billionaire and corporations, that's who gave them money and that's whose agenda they're pushing. You must have missed the whole Occupy Wallstreet movement. That's what it is all about.
If you can't see the GOP is all about the 1 percent, you are truly blind.
Actually Romney paid 13.9% on his 40 million dollar a year income. Not 30%.
Anyone else here pay 13.9% in taxes? Anyone? I barely topped 30k and I pay far more than that.
Paul, name me one person who pays 40% in federal taxes. The current tax rate for the top bracket is 35%, and can easily be reduced to less than 25% if one has patience and some good tax lawyers. Few if any Americans pay 50%, and that is only because they live in a state with a pretty high tax.
As for the voting measures, the reason why Democrats didn't vote was not necessarily because they opposed it, but because they didn't want to seem fiscally insane, as the GOP would imply. I wouldn't necessarily vote for Obama's bill because I would probably want to work on a better one, but I'd rather have that than this bull@!$%# proposed by Ryan.
Yes, I am for government living within its means. I think everyone is. But we cannot go into strict austerity with our economic recovery being so fragile, and we definitely cannot put the entire burden on domestic programs that serve the middle and lower class while giving $2 trillion in wasteful tax cuts that America DOES NOT NEED. Nor do I think the wealthy (or any taxpayer, for that matter) should get off scot-free. We all need to make some sacrifices: higher taxes, smaller defense budgets, and reformed entitlement programs included. But we do not need privatized or decentralized programs that will suck the life from seniors and the poor while giving a huge fat check to the wealthy, who as it is need to be taxed more. So @!$%# the Ryan budget; @!$%# cuts to domestic spending; @!$%# privatizing entitlements, and @!$%# tax cuts to the damn 1%!!!!!!!!!
Oh and I'd take being called a tax and spend liberal as a compliment. It's a helluva lot better than being a borrow and spend conservative.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
So you are saying that the Democrats didn't vote for Obama's budget because they have no self-respect, intestinal fortitude, are cowardly, and won't live up their responsibilities to represent their constituients - or to put it another way "have no balls".
NH_Shellback
I'm going to have to say that the Democrats didn't have any balls, at least not then. They also didn't want to alienate themselves to fiscally-minded voters in the election. It reminds me a lot of how the GOP showed that they had no balls when it came to making a decent deal to balance our budget. It seems like they were too scared of a middle-aged man with a brain the sizes of a peanut.
Obama Biden 2012
Why do the Democrats pander to their base so blatantly with these no way in hell are they going to pass in the House because they are so one-sided extremist Left-wing radical bills?
Have they completely forgotten that this country's political system works on compromise? That it makes them look just as stupid as they claim the Republicans are when they do the same thing over and over and expect a different result? (Isn't that the definition of insanity)?
Something wrong with you
Why did the republicans not go along with the 75 reduction 25 increase scenario? How much more do they want?
Cut infrastructure, cut higher education, cut food production, cut science, increase war. Got it.
Those cut will effect the poor not the rich. Can anyone tell me why you should vote for the Taliban?
They want to kill the elderly, poor, sick, working poor, middle class just so no one will oppose them.
Hey Taliban we do need the rich to help,we just need to make the sick, elderly, poor go away.
If we just kick the GOP out that would solve the problem. :)
Amen Domewars, Amen....
CEO the democrats have tride compermise. The GOP is our way or @!$%# off. BTW CEO gives me the impression your a big business lacky. :)
tride compermise. Really? And where is it you would expect employment from?
JOS1
The only thing he spelled correctly was "@!$%#".
Typical GOP, person presents you with facts, you correct his grammar instead.
Probably because if they cannot construct a coherent sentence, there's little chance of them understanding the meaning behind the words.
Why would you try to explain to that moron. He's dumber than grits
Regardless if you're a Democrat or Republican, their spelling is horrid. We don't need anymore help showing the word how uneducated we are.
At least pretend you know how to spell by clicking on the check icon with the ABC above it.
You may still not be able to spell afterwards, but at least you can tell people you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Ok well the Republican proposed cuts to education sure will help that spelling problem won't it. And guys, don't even pretend you haven't seen Tealiban posters with far far worse spelling and grammar. He miss-spelled two words. His point is valid. Address the point. Oh yeah, your playbook tells you to just derail and deflect. I forgot.
I don't favor "grants" allowing states to use FEDERAL funds "as they see fit". If states want full control of their Medicaid spending, they should forego federal funds. Federal funding - and the prerequisites which accompany such funding - ensure uniformity of eligibility and access to health care without concern that states will reduce benefits as a means of balancing state budgets and, more specifically, ensure that states will not use federal money INTENDED to reimburse funds expended for Medicaid beneficiaries to lure businesses with promises of tax exemptions and/or expand on the tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthiest at the expense of the health care needs of the poor, the elderly, and children.
Paul Ryan is a hypocrite
He ruined future generations with his vote for the medicare prescription program called part D. This is gonna costs us about 5 trillion over the next 25 years. Just this one little program as a part of medicare.
He thinks he doesn't ruin future generations but the democrats do. BS
I wish him (Ryan) nothing but herpes...
Ryan improves the future for generations of stock brokers and insurance companies who will take government funds from the poor and disadvantaged they were intended for in the form of the voucher system.
It will just funnel money intended for medical care into the pockets of private business. And give wall street more to gamble with.
Same old B.S. from Democrats, raise taxes and keep spending.
Maybe that's why the Senate not only hasn't had a budget for this nation in almost THREE YEARS now, but won't even bring any budget passed by the House up for a vote.
Instead Harry Reid "tables" everything, and then EVERY Democrat and left wing drone in the nation comes out with their "party of no" garbage about the Republicans.
Great "leadership" you've got there libs. Don't allow a vote on anything and then blame someone else for nothing happening.
You must all take all your "blame somebody else" lessons from Obama.
Anyone who would vote for that needs to have their heads examined. I don't care what party they're affiliated with.
Ruken-
What highway needs that much help? What rail projects are needed? Don't give me that high speed rail crap. Airlines are quicker and chepaer. Do you know that federal aid is the EXACT reason college costs are up? Because they can charge it?
Anyone that wants to increase the current federal budget for ANY reason needs their head examined...
Paul-4412303
Who are you Paul Ryan?
The republican plan is to decrease taxes on the rich and keep spending on the war machine. Nice one.
Paul-4412303
Ugh, Paul, you do know that 70,000 bridges all across this nation are deficient in structure??? You do know that we would need $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending to bring our system up to par??? And federal aid is not the major reason why costs are going up for college. There are things like increasing salaries, overhead costs, lack of donations, etc. Either way, we need to pressure universities to keep costs low. I don't care if its socialism; I'd rather have a socialist-priced education system then a free-market one that only works for the wealthy...
Even Gingrich doesn't like the Ryan plan. "Right wing social engineering," he called it.
Though honestly, I should probably consider anything Gingrich doesn't like as it's likely to have some merit.
Leave it to the GOP to stunt education and kill the elderly early.
Dear President Obama, our hearts go out to you! Zero co-operation from the Republican Corporate Political Puppets! Let's take our country back from CAPITALISM! It took them just 8 yrs. to destroy America! What ever it takes, we are behind you! We, the 99% American People cannot do it PEACEFULLY without you!
Capitalism isn't working and will never work because of CORPORATE GREED! NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS!
Enough is enough! It's time for change, and that time is NOW!! Not later, but right NOW!!!
TR, I see NO mention of dems not voting for obama's budget, why?
Capitalism does work id10t. We need to get corp's out of our politics.
Capitalism does NOT work. Show me a capitalist country that has lasted for 300 years. Yeah...didn't think so. This country needs a healthy mix of Capitalism and Socialism.. It's too big to have anything else. If not this country is headed for 3rd world status. Only Very Rich and Very Poor...Just the way Republicans want it.
How can any group cut all the monies for the poor or regulation and then want to cut taxes for the wealthy. The poor get shafted and the rich get what they want...and this is compromise. The sad part is the only thing both sides care about is pandering to their base so they can get reelected....no compromise for either side and we all suffer. How did it get so bad???????We need term limits on all politicians and we need it soon. Along with campaign reform
So, NO Dem votes for Obama's "budget" and it is the fault of the gop? Now I am remembering why I am a recovering demwit.
You would think they would at least support thier leader. Are the house dems racists?
Democrats aren't jackbooted thugs that march in step with their leaders unlike the republicans..Democrats have the nads to say no to the leadership. You guys can't do that to Rush without be cut off at the knees.
Talk about being a sleep or should we say being the sheeple?
Republicans love vouchers to cover medical costs, or school costs. Someone ask Ryan if he would be willing to have congress receive a voucher for their medical coverage. We would have an easier time getting a bill passed to fund Newt's moon colony!
WHAT???????????????
You effing idiots created a 15 trillion deficit and now it's the "Millionaires" responsibility to reduce it.
How about you cut some effing spending you cock sucker!!!!!!!!
Get rid of everyone of these effing azzholes...starting at the TOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gee you seem bitter knowing the Democrats will be winning in Nov. Take a chill pill, smoke a joint, calm down.