I agree.
Paul Ryans budget attacks entitlements in a small way and even that has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
It should be noted that cutting an additional $4-6billion every two weeks isn’t chump change. Tens or even a hundred billion in a year isn’t cowardice either.
Tea partiers that seek to undermine the significance of those cuts, even if insufficient in the grand scheme of things, is a sure fire way to play into Democratic hands and guarantee that even those cuts dont’ get made.
Our daily debt in interest alone is $1.2 billion per day.
Those savings you cited ain’t shit.
The figure is meaningless in and of itself (it lacks context, what part of that debt is defense? what part is road maintenance? What part is entitlements?) as well as comparing apples to oranges…you can’t eliminate interest on the debt for decades to come and some of that debt is also generating benefits (revenue) such as roads, infrastructure etc. Some debt is good, some debt is bad. That’s not to say there isn’t a real problem, but if you think you can blank the debt and its interest, you’re deluding yourself.
Savings are savings, get the low hanging fruit first. If you undermine those savings by undermining GOP efforts, you’re only guaranteeing that Dems will win who will in turn increase spending.
Politics isn’t about moral victories, it’s about practical victory. You can either move in the right direction, or you can ensure that nothing is done and watch the debt grow at an increasing rate.
Well, it really is chump change when you are talking about more than a trillion in the hole each year. However, that does not mean you should not take it as a start.
The rail tunnels through the Sierra Nevada mountains when they did the first trans-continental railroad was measured in INCHES per day in progress, often. But in the end, those inches added up and it was a start.
A start is often small, but you need to do it.
I’ll take 4-6 billion every two weeks as a start.
Tens or even a hundred billion in a year isn’t cowardice either.
Tea partiers that seek to undermine the significance of those cuts, even if insufficient in the grand scheme of things, is a sure fire way to play into Democratic hands and guarantee that even those cuts dont’ get made.
No offense, but this is spin and GOP shilling.
Debt is debt, and you can’t pay down your debts without chipping away at your principle, which is literally impossible if the amount reduced fails to exceed the rate of daily accumulated interest. All this gains is debt on debt accumulation.
Savings are not savings if you aren’t actually saving. If you only make $1000 dollars a week, and spend $5000 dollars the next week, but commit to reducing your spending to $4500 the week after, your savings is still less than zero. This is just crude example that doesn’t factor in the weight of interest.
This is the math you think we should subscribe to just because the GOP put it forward?
I see so I’m a shill now? On what planet are you from that you think calling someone a shill isn’t meant to cause offense. In short you’re full of it.
You can either make no concessions and therefore guarantee that the growth of debt will continue at an increasing rate or you can slow that growth by making practical/realistic choice. $6 billion in cuts over 2 weeks is a pretty significant amount by anyone’s standard. Does it make the problem go away in the short term? No but anyone that suggests that the problem can go away in the short-term is flat out lying to you.
If you don’t think that $100 billion plus in spending cuts isn’t significant I’d submit you don’t know what you don’t know. If you think that guaranteeing that not even cutting that amount represents some sort of benefit/victory for fiscal restraint I’d submit you’re from the same planet as Democrats.
You throw out $1.2 billlion/day in interest for its shock value but without any understanding of how to quantify/qualify that figure.
Honestly you are out of if your depth if you think bankrupting the US sooner rather than later by playing into Democratic hands represents some form of fiscal/moral victory.
So you’re opting for the lesser of two evils instead of just getting rid of both evils entirely…
Gentlemen: Let’s keep the discussion civil and disagreement respectful.
Given the level of internecine squabbling, are ya’ll sure you’re not Democrats? :haha:
Gutshot, I hope the pragmatism you espouse rules the day or the mid-terms will prove to be a pyrrhic victory at best for the GOP.
The rigid ideologues who insist compromise is synonymous with capitulation virtually guarantee congressional deadlock and continued legislative paralysis at a time which demands substantive bipartisan action.
If the Democrats/Obama had shown even a little bipartisanship you speak of and a fraction of Boehner’s pragmatic fiscal restraint most of this problem wouldn’t even exist.
Bipartisanship cuts both ways and Democrats have some serious soul searching to do. They don’t strike me as any more pragmatic than Michelle Bachman and at least as dishonest.
I’m all for cutting $6B. $6B is better than zero and as such it is a technical step in the right direction. That said, while $6B is “significant”, at the same time it isn’t significant. It’s the equivalent of putting a band-aid over a ripped open femoral artery or bailing water out of the Titanic with a coffee mug. They can make all the 10-11 figure cuts they want but until someone does something about the big portions of the pie, then those are the real symbolic (and meaningless in terms of the big picture) efforts. If I’m not mistaken, you can strip out all discretionary spending and we’re still bleeding out.
It’s not $6B over a whole year, it’s $6B over the course of the two-week extension. If you kept giving extensions and the average remained $6B in cuts (the most recent agreement was actually $10B), you’re talking in excess of $100B over the course of the next year. I’d submit that a $100B reduction (about 10%) in the size of the deficit is pretty significant.
Is it enough? Absolutely not, but it’s a good start.
yea “good start” I would equate it to a quagmire of cowards!
Ah…
There’s nothing quite like a sophisticated political debate with a random interjection of derogatory adjectives.
Flinging meaningless invective without consideration for reality is typically a symptom of liberal idiots. It’s disconcerting that it increasingly seems to be the norm for conservatives as well.
If you’ve got a realistic alternative than I’m all ears.
As a wise man once said ‘a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.’ Refusing to take that first step doesn’t get you any closer to your destination.
Its not even enough to warrant a pat on the back. Ill give them a pat on the back when they get the deficit to zero, and start getting that 14 trillion + number going down.
This isn’t something that can be stretched out for another 20 years while they play games. The Fed is already printing hundreds of billions which is having real effects on the value of our dollar. We can’t keep doing this much longer.
Sadly I think a breakdown is what some people want, though.
If anyone wanted to know we we considered getting rid of the GD area, read this thread. Everyone thinks they are right and instead of doing some research or posting of facts they escalate the situation in MAD.
I’ll admit, I don’t really know how much of what is here is true or not. So, I just stand by and watch.
How do you get there? I’m all ears.
Who said anything about a pat on the back? I’m just talking about moving in the right direction, which beats the hell out of moving in the wrong direction.
Does that mean there aren’t real problems moving forward? Of course not. Balancing the budget and paying down the debt should be the goal for everyone here but there are real impediments, some structural, some political, that need to be considered. Pretending they aren’t there isn’t a recipe for success.
Stop spending more than you are taking in.
We’re still moving in the wrong direction at over 1 trillion a year. The right direction is no more deficit and paying down the debt. Slightly less as bad doesn’t mean good.
If Republicans cannot do that then why are they there? I understand they don’t control the senate or white house but thats what checks and balances are there for. To keep one side of government from going out of control. They are failing to do that. If they can’t then what purpose do they serve?
Are we supposed to sit around cavorting we still are spending over a trillion a year we don’t have? If the rules don’t allow them to do it change the rules. I don’t see anything in the Constitution that says a spending bill cannot be recalled. If they need to they need to refuse to spend another dime. Not hide behind legislative rules that can be changed. The same with “non-discretionary” spending. Another act of hiding behind something that can be changed.