Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:06 pmAnybody else watching? No surprises so far. "Its all Bush's fault, we need a balanced approach, the TEA party House is unreasonable " etc.
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:06 pmRe: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:07 pmIt's all true? Mostly.
Re: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:17 pmRepublicans may be looking a gift horse in the mouth. $4 of cuts for every $1 of closed loopholes, sounds pretty good to me. They had better hope they win in the court of public opinion, if a default occurs.
Re: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:23 pmMost of the cuts are illusionary. Future spending cuts were promised to Reagan and Bush 41; they were both duped.
Re: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:33 pmPolishPunisher wrote:Republicans may be looking a gift horse in the mouth. $4 of cuts for every $1 of closed loopholes, sounds pretty good to me. They had better hope they win in the court of public opinion, if a default occurs.
They aren't cuts, they are declines in the rate of spending growth. Its like saying "I'm spending $15 a day now on an income of $10 a day, and I plan to spend $17 a day next year, but I'm going to promise a cut of $1 and only spend $16 a day."
Re: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:56 pmAGgressive Metal wrote:PolishPunisher wrote:Republicans may be looking a gift horse in the mouth. $4 of cuts for every $1 of closed loopholes, sounds pretty good to me. They had better hope they win in the court of public opinion, if a default occurs.
They aren't cuts, they are declines in the rate of spending growth. Its like saying "I'm spending $15 a day now on an income of $10 a day, and I plan to spend $17 a day next year, but I'm going to promise a cut of $1 and only spend $16 a day."
Good point.
Re: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:07 pmBoehner's response was short, clear, blunt, perfectly on point. Anyone that couldn't understand it, well, they deserve what they get.
Well, we're all going to get it anyway in the end, because there is no "fixing" this; it's just a matter of how much it can be delayed, and how soft or hard the landing is. Me, I would rather have a protracted softer landing and waste most of my preps as unneeded, than than to have a nasty hard jolt and be able to say I told so.)
Well, we're all going to get it anyway in the end, because there is no "fixing" this; it's just a matter of how much it can be delayed, and how soft or hard the landing is. Me, I would rather have a protracted softer landing and waste most of my preps as unneeded, than than to have a nasty hard jolt and be able to say I told so.)
Re: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:53 pmfrom 0bamas "performance"
"Understand — raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up."
am i missing something ?
seems like the same thing to me...
"Understand — raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up."
am i missing something ?
seems like the same thing to me...
Re: Presidential Address thread
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:45 pmAGgressive Metal wrote: They aren't cuts, they are declines in the rate of spending growth. Its like saying "I'm spending $15 a day now on an income of $10 a day, and I plan to spend $17 a day next year, but I'm going to promise a cut of $1 and only spend $16 a day."
That's what Clinton did. He never balanced the budget, he reduced the increase some. He also expended consumable assets set aside for emergencies (military supplies and the oil reserves) that Bush II had to replace. Bush II caught flak for the expenditures.