Hey Democrats...where are the spending cuts?

[billvon 3,121]

>Except it'll be worldwide...

I bet the whole galaxy collapses.

[airdvr 210]

So should we give these asshats more money to blow? I'm OK with the tax hikes. I realize all of us are going to have to pay to get us out of this mess. But seriously, all this and eliminating the debt ceiling?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

>So should we give these asshats more money to blow?

We have to give the asshats more money to blow.
We have to make the asshats cut spending.

Which is why the 'fiscal cliff' really isn't the end of the world.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Which is why the 'fiscal cliff' really isn't the end of the world.

Bill your man won, I get it. Taxes will go up, I get that to. But if I recall correctly in the past you supported raising taxes but cutting spending. Significantly cutting spending..... cause you can do math you realize we can't just raise taxes to get rid of this problem.

If the Dem's who oppose cutting any programs win what sense does it make to just raise taxes?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,121]

>Bill your man won, I get it. Taxes will go up, I get that to. But if I recall correctly in the
>past you supported raising taxes but cutting spending. Significantly cutting
>spending..... cause you can do math you realize we can't just raise taxes to get rid
>of this problem.

I don't get how your post is a reply to mine.

The fiscal cliff isn't the end of the world. In fact it WILL accomplish what you listed above - tax increases and spending cuts. (19% increase in revenue via taxes, 9% cut in discretionary spending.) It's what we get, automatically. So if that's what you want, you get it with the fiscal cliff.

That's the good news. The bad news is that cutting government spending will hammer the economy, which is where the "cliff" terminology comes from. Is that a price we want to pay? We probably have to at this point.

>If the Dem's who oppose cutting any programs win what sense does it make to just
>raise taxes?

It doesn't. Fortunately the "cost of doing nothing" is the discretionary spending cut.

[billvon 3,121]

>where are the spending cuts?

=========================
Congress Has Cut Discretionary Funding By $1.5 Trillion Over Ten Years
First Stage of Deficit Reduction Is in Law

Revised November 8, 2012
Related

$2 Trillion in Deficit Savings Would Achieve Key Goal: Stabilizing the Debt Over the Next Decade

Policymakers and budget experts generally agree on the need to reduce projected deficits and put the federal budget on a sustainable path. They have focused less attention, however, on the amount of deficit reduction that the 112th Congress and the President have enacted. Reductions in funding for discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs enacted last year, primarily in the Budget Control Act, have produced $1.5 trillion in savings in discretionary spending for fiscal years 2013 through 2022. This part of the budget includes defense, international programs, and an array of domestic programs ranging from education to law enforcement, food safety, and environmental protection.

Two-fifths of the $1.5 trillion in savings from cutting and capping funding for discretionary programs comes from defense, while the other three-fifths comes from reductions in domestic and international programs. These reductions will shrink non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level on record as a share of GDP, with data going back to 1962.

The $1.5 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending also will produce lower interest payments on the debt. The interest savings amount to about $250 billion, bringing the total deficit reduction achieved to date to more than $1.7 trillion.
==============================

Now how about agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts on the middle class?