Progressives [1] What about the Debt Deal do you not like exactly besides the lack of massive tax increases?
So the Democrats didn’t include prescription coverage in Medicare (but would have), the Republicans did (because the Democrats would have), and it’s still the Democrats fault? That’s just about priceless. I can’t wait to start blaming Republicans for all the things I think they would have done.
How 'bout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; are those not technically Dem programs, per se, too?
The tax cuts?
Massive. Heh.
No, that’s it exactly: The absolute lack of serious effort at getting the deficit under control. I know the Tea Party loves their deficit spending, but they need to get it through their heads that we need to do something about it.
Is that a trick question? Of course. Wasn’t it liberals who want high speed trains, a green construction corps, billions more to community aid, a stimulus that was much bigger with a heaver emphasis on spending and lighter on tax cuts, more spending for all the regulatory agencies, higher teacher pay, ‘investments’ in renewable energy and other technologies, and the rest of the laundry list of pet programs they’ve been pushing for years now?
Isn’t it the liberals on this board who are constantly arguing for the bigger government model, pointing to European countries as examples of liberal success? Who is it that I’ve been arguing with over the past 10 years when I point out that smaller government leads to better outcomes than larger government?
If you think liberals don’t want a larger government, I’m not sure what to say other than that I want to have a little of whatever you’re smoking.
I would tell you that the Tea Party would say that those are liberal programs. If you want to swap out Democrat for liberal, go for it. As for the wars? The ones that Dems voted for too? That Hopey McChangey could have ended, if he wanted to (and indeed, promised to)? 
I haven’t seen the exact cost breakdown, but the source of long term, systemic cancer to our federal budget isn’t those conflicts (they aren’t wars). It’s the aging population and the bloated, unaffordable programs that serve them.
If the President had had his way he’d just have raised the debt ceiling in the first place without any sort of cuts or revenue increase.
This is undoubtedly true. And we wouldn’t have a 12 person commission with teeth looking to chop more. We’d have another neutered panel run by Simpson, Bowles, et al who would come up with possibly some suggestions, that could never be voted on because there’s no political cover with their respective bases.
You’re the one who said the Tea Partiers blamed Democrats. I’m not the one swapping terms, you are.
Oh, so now we’re blaming Democrats for policies that they don’t put a stop to? By that rationale, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are George W. Bush’s fault.
Pretty much done, since you obviously haven’t been paying attention. What, did you think your guy’s mess was able to be cleaned up overnight? And what the hell is the fucking glee over wars lasting longer than they need to? :dubious: Is that less important than getting in a cheap, ignorant dig? I think you’re better than that, I really do.
You know that the current deal, modeled after Reid’s proposal, accounts for those drawdowns, right?
The point is, you can’t make the equivalence between the longterm cost of the conflicts, with the longterm cost of programs backed by lefties.
Edit to add: I have no ‘glee’ as you put it over those conflicts - I know a lot of people impacted by them, including families of guys not coming back. But DO NOT equate a conflict, that even many Dems voted for because of the evidence at hand, with social spending that we cannot afford.
Are you saying this was a bad thing?
The proper place for that is in negotiating the budget. It’s political theater if we have to go through the farce of spending debates multiple times. Other countries and even the US up to this point were able to do it.
And that the Republicans were for that before they were against that before they were for it again.
Apparently you really are that unaware. Check it out. About $3.7 trillion, with a t, in direct costs alone; possibly more. There’s a multiplier for opportunity costs and interest. Don’t you think that has some contribution to the problem? Note, btw, that I did not make the claim you ascribe to me. :dubious:
You can’t compare the cost of death and destruction to the cost of making the world a better, safer, saner place? Well, maybe YOU can’t.
Was that *really *the “point” you wanted to make with your ignorant and childish little dig? Remember the First Rule of Holes.
If the president had his way the Bush tax cuts would have expired which would do WAY more to close the budget deficit than any other thing being bandied about here. Heck, taxes on the rich might have even gone up a bit past that level.
Dude, we’re talking about fiscal stuff here. Cost of death and destruction? Please, give it a rest.
$3.7T. Or… 2 years of Obama’s deficits? That much, huh? Wow. ***That ***certainly is what is bankrupting this country long term, and what the Tea Partiers were so spun up about… :rolleyes:
OK, now I have to take issue with that. He is trying to have it both ways, by whining that the tax cuts need to be repealed, making his base think that, but unwilling to do what it takes to make that happen.
And you know that he has not proposed repealing the whole cuts, just the part on people doing better than $250k… which amounts to practically a rounding error. In another thread, I think it was something like $39b a year.
You mean the budgets Democrats have refused to pass for two years now, in violation of the law, because they DON’T want to have that debate?
It is another debate and I think one we have done here in the past but the “evidence at hand” was evidence ginned up by the Bush administration. Hell, ask General Colin Powell how happy he was about the administration putting him before the UN to spew lies.
Yes, Dems voted for it. Dems were also being hoodwinked (indeed the whole congress). If you want to say they were negligent in their jobs I’d probably agree with you.
The above is a hijack to this thread but wanted to respond to your statement. If you want to explore it further in another thread I’d be happy to.
No way I’m going to jump into that hijack. We’ve had that conversation a million times here before. The bumper sticker is, I disagree.
If by “he” you mean “Obama” then yeah, I agree he has been a massive disappointment in fighting for this. So much so I think he means to do what he has done.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will go a long way to closing the gap in the current deficit (according to the CBO). A long, long way.
Not sure how it pans out if you only do over $250K. Either way though it helps close the deficit.