It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by jdub297
Not that I believe the numbers, but apparently they are anticipating savings in medicare to the tune of like 400 billion by raising the age from 65 to 67.
They are also anticipating 800 billion in savings by drawing down and ending the wars.
What is killer here is that they offered this up with a 1.6 trillion dollar tax hike over ten years (160 billion a year) and have asked for another 50 billion in stimulus money...yeah...that stimulus worked out really well. The only "shovel ready jobs" was someone shoveling the BS they were trying to feed us.
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by kozmo
Ha!...You nailed that one. While we might not agree on some of what I like to consider "positive indicators" on the economy in another thread...we do agree on this. "Reduced increases in spending"....what a load of sheep speak...They are still increasing spending and veiling it behind words that will make the "herds" think something is getting done. When the reality is...a deficit is a deficit is a deficit.
If we do not balance the budget through spending cuts and increased revenue...the overall national debt is going to destroy us. When the interest rates start to climb, the interest on the debt is going to devour the lion's share of incoming revenue...but no one wants to think of that...they plug their fingers in there ears and "la-la-la!...I can't hear you!"
I was going to try and explain that the president offered his proposal behind closed doors and everything you're hearing now is what the GOP leadership is telling you.
Mr. Obama said Mr. Boehner had stopped returning his calls when it became clear that rank-and-file House Republicans would not agree to raise revenues on wealthy Americans as part of a debt-reduction deal, despite Mr. Obama’s concessions on reducing future spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
“Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense,” Mr. Obama said. “We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security..."
Republicans, though, said that the White House pushed for more revenue midway through the talks.
Obama had to accept deeper spending cuts than he wanted ...
Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, got cuts he demanded without immediate tax increases...
The framework will immediately cap domestic and defense spending, resulting in cuts of $917 billion over 10 years.
The framework then calls for more deficit reduction -- between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion worth -- to be determined by the end of this year and imposed over 10 years.
Across-the-board cuts as trigger: If the committee deadlocks or fails to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in debt reduction, the sword of Damocles will fall on most forms of spending in the federal budget.
Specifically, as much as $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts would kick in -- evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending.
That might not be a perfectly accurate memory of the events. Boehner had agreed to $800 Billion in extra revenue (tax hikes). Then the bi-partisan "Gang of Six" came in with their own idea of $2 trillion. Obama figured he couldn't just offer $800 billion, so he said to Boehner, "Hey John, remember you were going to give me $800 billion? Now you've got to give me $1.2 trillion." Boehner felt betrayed and walked. It's discussed in an objective manner in that Times article I linked.
So the president offered spending cuts and then asked for some revenue. The GOP declined and all we got was spending cuts with more spending cuts to follow.
All the OP was asking for was for someone to show him the cuts. Are you the guy that can do that?
Now, the president is moving for both spending cuts and revenue at the same time.
If they don't have a leg to stand on, then why worry? Obviously, you're sure they'll lose, why not just sit back and enjoy it? Oh, and if the Democrats feel they should negotiate with the Republicans, calling them "whiny little children" might not be the best opening line.
The GOP doesn't have a leg to stand on and are now just looking like whiny little children who don't want to negotiate.