Renegging Already !!!

[Anonymous]

Maybe if we hadn't done tax cuts while trying to fight two foreign wars we wouldn't have this problem!

News from The Hill:

GOP chairman to offer bill to prevent Pentagon spending cuts
By John T. Bennett

A senior House Republican vowed Monday to roll out legislation to "prevent" Pentagon spending cuts mandated by a supercommittee failure.

Rep. Buck McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the cuts would do "catastrophic damage to our men and women in uniform" and national security if they are implemented.

"Secretary Panetta has said he doesn't want to be the Secretary who hollows out defense," McKeon said in a reference to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

"Likewise, I will not be the armed services chairman who presides over crippling our military. I will not let these sequestration cuts stand," he said.

 

[Whitewing]

Maybe if we eliminated the Dept of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy (to name a few), and froze the hiring of new federal employees, we could fund the War Department.

Then again, pigs might soon fly.

 

[TSR]

The ship has hit the sand. Didn't the President say he would veto anything that would eliminate the across the board cuts agreed to, if the super committee should fail to come to an agreement?

 

[hypocritexposer]

The ship has hit the sand. Didn't the President say he would veto anything that would eliminate the across the board cuts agreed to, if the super committee should fail to come to an agreement?

He'll have a hard time vetoing anything when he's not re-elected.....

 

[hypocritexposer]

Which Dem. from the committee, was it that said they did not agree to any spending cuts, but a slower growth rate of spending? oops, he let it slip......

:lol: :lol:


bump spending up by 25% and then "cut spending" by 5%


"Look what we did, we cut spending" :roll:



I hate companies that raise the price by 10% and then have a "5% off" sale too

 

[Tam]

Oldtimer wants us all to believe Bush's wars are to blame for everything going on now. :roll:

Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVERFrom NPR via the Weekly Standard:

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

How much in deficit spending did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency? It's pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day. That's a lot of spending, Georgie. Shame on you!

But compared to Obama's $5 BILLION of deficit spending per day? Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush.

If you want to argue that Bush looks bad, fine. Bush looks bad. But Obama looks positively vile.

The article proceeds to present another way to calculate deficit spending by going a little deeper into the weeds:

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.

And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

It's not often that one gets to hear a call for "responsible" fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush's by more than $1 trillion a year — yet that's apparently what we'll get to hear tonight. But President Obama's actions tell another, far clearer, story about his commitment to deficit reduction.

So let's recalculate based on the deeper analysis. Bush's deficit spending was $410 billion a year divided by 365 days, which equals $1.1 billion per day. Versus Obama's deficit spending, which has been $1,413 billion a year divided by 365, which equals $3.87 billion per day. That is 3.5 times more spending every single day from Obama.

Now, particularly dumbass liberals often try to argue that George Bush somehow made his war spending "off budget." That is such a pile of crap it is unreal. Who controls the spending? CONGRESS DOES. Congress ALWAYS had the power to cut off funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars any time it wanted. And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively – agreed on how to handle the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was DEMOCRATS who did not want to be in the position of having to either support war funding and enrage their base or vote against it and enrage the American people. So it was NOT George Bush who took war funding "off budget," it was Democrats who were afraid to be held accountable. And every penny that Bush spent on the war and on everything else ultimately showed up in his spending and in his debt.

The problem is that there are truly stupid people who have no clue how government works and live in a world of lies.

The federal government is twice as large as it was ten years ago. And Bush is partly responsible for this, no question about it. But it is 30% larger than it was just two years ago, and therefore Obama's share of this increase is huge in relation to Bush's.
We can't go on like this. We will soon be going the way of the Dodo bird.

Democrats offered no plans – NONE. ZERO. – to deal with the fact that Medicare will be bankrupt and collapse in 2016. That is less than five years away. But it's actually much worse than that. For example, as recently as December 2010, the estimate was that it would go bankrupt "as early as 2017," according to CBS reporting. Which is to say that it is going broke a lot faster than the experts have been anticipating; and it easily could go broke by 2014 instead of 2016.

And Obama has no plan. He has completely abdicated any leadership whatsoever. He offered a budget that was so ridiculous (it would have added $12 trillion to the debt) that not even ONE DEMOCRATS would vote for it. It failed 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Just how massive a failure is Obama? And since then he has offered NOTHING but fearmongering and demonization.

We desperately need leadership. We desperately need a plan. And Obama – who is supposed to be seeking to rally the nation behind a common cause – is instead merely offering demagogic partisan speeches. When he is not spending American into bankruptcy and financial implosion.

Update: Before this article was published, I came across this angle on the same issue:

Obama: More than Twice the Debt in Half the Time as Bush
by House Committee on Ways and Means
A recent "infographic" released by the White House tries to assign the blame for our massive debt and deficits to former President Bush and Republican Congresses. However, the graphic conveniently omits President Obama's record and his plans for the fiscal future of our country. If the President had his way and his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal was enacted, here is what a comparison of the increase in public debt would look like:



As the graph above shows, the debt held by the public increased $2.4 trillion between 2000 and 2008, from $3.4 trillion to $5.8 trillion. Under President Obama's budget proposal, the debt held by the public is projected to increase $6.1 trillion between 2008 and 2012, from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion.

That means that President Obama will more than double the debt accumulated under President Bush in half the time. Twice the debt in half the time: courtesy of the Obama Administration.

Pretty much no matter how you slice it, Obama is a big government socialist out to bankrupt America faster than anyone who ever came before him.

Now a couple questions for you Oldtimer

Do you really think it was Bush's war that caused everything going on now or did Obama's lack of leadership and out of control spending have something to do with future cuts to defense? :?

Second question are you one of the dumbass liberals this article is talking about? :wink:

 

[Tam]

The ship has hit the sand. Didn't the President say he would veto anything that would eliminate the across the board cuts agreed to, if the super committee should fail to come to an agreement?

He also said he would veto any bill that contained earmarks. How many times has he renigged on that campaign promise? :? :roll:

 

[BRG]

Maybe if we hadn't done tax cuts while trying to fight two foreign wars we wouldn't have this problem!

News from The Hill:

GOP chairman to offer bill to prevent Pentagon spending cuts
By John T. Bennett

A senior House Republican vowed Monday to roll out legislation to "prevent" Pentagon spending cuts mandated by a supercommittee failure.

Rep. Buck McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the cuts would do "catastrophic damage to our men and women in uniform" and national security if they are implemented.

"Secretary Panetta has said he doesn't want to be the Secretary who hollows out defense," McKeon said in a reference to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

"Likewise, I will not be the armed services chairman who presides over crippling our military. I will not let these sequestration cuts stand," he said.

Maybe if we wouldn't give welfare to anyone, subsidies anything, and give all the foreign aid to all that hate us, we wouldn't be in this trouble.

 

[Anonymous]

Even Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury warned him of the dire results that would follow if major economic changes in the country didn't take place and the fallacy of cutting taxes while trying to fight 2 foreign wars..
GW just ignored and hid it from the country- and fired O'Neill in order to get another "yes" man!

Paul O'Neill

A report commissioned in 2002 by O'Neill, while he was Treasury Secretary, suggested the United States faced future federal budget deficits of more than US$ 500 billion. The report also suggested that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts, or both would be unavoidable if the United States were to meet benefit promises to its future generations. The study estimated that closing the budget gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase. The Bush administration left the findings out of the 2004 annual budget report published in February 2003.

O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies and his push to further investigate alleged al-Qaeda funding from some American-allied countries, as well as his objection to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — that he considered as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration — led to him being fired in 2002 and replaced with John W. Snow.

But back to the subject-- if the agreement they made to is so bad why then did the Repubs agree to these across the board cuts...Were they again just trying to blow smoke :???: Smoke and mirrors illusionary show :???: Sounds now like they never planned on honoring it- with McCain and many others saying its just a law we passed- we can always change it....
Sounds like renegging to me !!

McCain, Graham Say They're Working on Plan Soften Blow of Sequester

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said they are "disappointed" that the super committee failed to reach an agreement and are working on a plan to mitigate the effects of the "draconian sequester" of $600 billion in defense spending, which would come on top of the $450 billion the Defense Department has committed to cutting over the next decade. "As every military and civilian defense official has stated, these cuts represent a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and cannot be allowed to occur," they said in a joint statement. "…We are now working on a plan to minimize the impact of the sequester on the Department of Defense and to ensure that any cuts do not leave us with a hollow military."

 

[hopalong]

Sounds like obaba politics to me oldtimer :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[Whitewing]

Since I'd like to understand your thought processes OT, please explain to me how tax cuts coupled with two foreign wars by Bush = bad, while those same tax cuts coupled with two foreign wars and tripled federal spending by Obama = good.

And I say "good", because I've yet to see you utter a single negative word about the Messiah.

 

[Anonymous]

Since I'd like to understand your thought processes OT, please explain to me how tax cuts coupled with two foreign wars by Bush = bad, while those same tax cuts coupled with two foreign wars and tripled federal spending by Obama = good.

And I say "good", because I've yet to see you utter a single negative word about the Messiah.

They are not good- the reason Obama has been pushing for (and may get now with the supercommittee failure) the end of the Bush tax cuts- plus getting the millionaires and zillionaires to pay their fair share for what its cost to protect their millions...

In fact this was an idea first promoted by the economic commentator and millionaire Ben Stein on his rounds of FOX News. He even had O'Reilly agreeing that both as millionaires they had more to lose than the average Joe Blow and should be putting forward more to fund the troops/wars...

On May 14, 2006, during an appearance on the Fox News program Your World with Neil Cavuto, Stein called for a tax increase of 3.5% for wealthy Americans, to be earmarked for soldiers and military initiatives. Indeed, Stein wrote an editorial for The New York Times critical of those who would rather make money in the world of finance than fight terrorism.

Like he said- you aren't going to pay off our debt by spending cuts alone- its going to take raising revenue too- a combined effort...And in no other wars have we cut the revenue income while fighting the war....
Even George Washington and Alexander Hamilton had to put in place one of the first federal taxes (the whiskey tax ) to pay the debts of their war.. The first federal sales tax was put in place to fund the War of 1812- and Abe in 1861 signed the Revenue Act which imposed the first Federal income tax- in order to fund the war...

Only GW thought he knew better! :roll:

 

[Whitewing]

I'm not following the logic here:

They are not good- the reason Obama has been pushing for (and may get now with the supercommittee failure) the end of the Bush tax cuts....

Why didn't the newly-elected Obama, who also had 60 member veto-proof majority in the US Senate, simply abolish the Bush tax cuts when he had the chance the first time around?

And how has piling on all that additional debt helped the situation?

Finally, how much personal income tax constitutes a millionaire's fair share?

 

[Anonymous]

So back to the subject of Republicans renegging that you're trying to weasel away from- Do you agree with these Repubs that apparently told you they would do one thing in order to put up a smoke screen so they could raise the National Debt ceiling--but are now coming out and claiming they had their fingers crossed and won't abide by it :???:

Is this the new Republican way-- to negotiate an agreement to make themselves look good at the time-- and then come back a few months later when they don't think as many folks are watching- and say "we really didn't mean that".... :???:

 

[Whitewing]

So back to the subject of Republicans renegging that you're trying to weasel away from- Do you agree with these Repubs that apparently told you they would do one thing in order to put up a smoke screen so they could raise the National Debt ceiling--but are now coming out and claiming they had their fingers crossed and won't abide by it :???:

Is this the new Republican way-- to negotiate an agreement to make themselves look good at the time-- and then come back a few months later when they don't think as many folks are watching- and say "we really didn't mean that".... :???:

If there's anyone on these boards whose a weasel OT, it's you. A weasel on addressing issues, a weasel when it comes to staying on topic, and a weasel when it comes to telling the truth. But I digress.

"The new Republican way"? Okay, I'll play. Are you now asking me if I've ever believed, or claimed that I believe. everything that a pub politican utters? :lol: You must be kidding. If you're asking if I've ever claimed the pubs are as pure as the driven snow, the answer is no.

Politicians say what they need to say to get elected. Making themselves look good is what it's all about; honoring promises? Again.... :lol:

My view and analysis of which of the two major political parties I wish to support is rather simplistic. On the whole, which party in the end, is likely to pass legislation and govern in a form that I believe will serve the best interests of the citizens, uphold the U.S. Constitution, and prolong the longetivity and good health of the United States as a free nation? As you might guess, that answer is usually quite simple as well.

My beef with you OT (besides the obvious outright lies, misrepresentations, and words you place in the mouths of others) and the reason I engage you on so many of your political posts, is your seeming lack of objectivity and honesty when it comes to any given issue being discussed.

Your feigned outrage at pub politicians juxtaposed with your proclaimed "libertarian" views, your stony silence when donk politicians do the same...usually in spades....just don't add up to any thoughtful person. I suspect you're either a person who does not believe what he's typing and is therefore just a troll, or you may just be a loon and can't see the obvious contradictions in your statements.

Alternately, it could just be the effect of years of alcohol abuse. I really don't know.

 

[Tam]

Oldtimer wrote

Only GW thought he knew better!

:roll:

Now, particularly dumbass liberals often try to argue that George Bush somehow made his war spending "off budget." That is such a pile of crap it is unreal. Who controls the spending? CONGRESS DOES. Congress ALWAYS had the power to cut off funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars any time it wanted. And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively – agreed on how to handle the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was DEMOCRATS who did not want to be in the position of having to either support war funding and enrage their base or vote against it and enrage the American people. So it was NOT George Bush who took war funding "off budget," it was Democrats who were afraid to be held accountable. And every penny that Bush spent on the war and on everything else ultimately showed up in his spending and in his debt.

The problem is that there are truly stupid people who have no clue how government works and live in a world of lies.[/b]

YEP thought so the article was talking about you Oldtimer.

As far as what Stein said, the Dems could tax the Millionaires and Billionaries 100% and it still would not put a dent in the effects of Obama's last three years of spending but all you seem to be worried about is Bush's spending. :roll: If taxes go up, you can bet the extra will never be used to pay off the Bush war debt as in true Democrat fashion the SPENDING WILL GO UP TOO. Just how do you think they will pay back the 2012 election campaign donors? There will be more guaranteed loans for bankrupting green energy companies you can count on that OLDTIMER. The Dems answer to the debt problem is always raising taxes and it has never worked. SO why not try something totally different like CUTTING SPENDING and living within their means. :x

Oldtimer wrote

They are not good- the reason Obama has been pushing for (and may get now with the supercommittee failure) the end of the Bush tax cuts- plus getting the millionaires and zillionaires to pay their fair share for what its cost to protect their millions.

The problem with your comments Oldtimer is they fly in the face of REALITY. Obama had his chance to abolish the Bush tax cuts if that is what he really wanted BUT HE EXTENDED THEM. Why did he extend them? Because everyone including a very large amount of his party realized it is not smart to raise taxes in a recession. Obama can say anything you want to put in his mouth but REALITY is HIS ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN YOUR WORDS.

As for what Stein said why should the millionaires and billionaires pay to fund wars? Why shouldn't you and even those on welfare have any skin in that game? The wars are protecting YOUR RIGHTS too aren't they? Your answer to everything is, just like the Dems, let the "RICH" pay. :roll: When all the "RICH" leave the US who will pay to protect you then Oldtimer? :?

 

[hopalong]

once again oldtimer attempts to lay the blame off on Bush and fails miserably as usual!!!
He is using the few live brain cells he has not cooked with alcohol abuse in order to justify his BLAME GAME!!!!!!

 

[Whitewing]

As far as what Stein said, the Dems could tax the Millionaires and Billionaries 100% and it still would not put a dent in the effects of Obama's last three years of spending but all you seem to be worried about is Bush's spending. :roll: If taxes go up, you can bet the extra will never be used to pay off the Bush war debt as in true Democrat fashion the SPENDING WILL GO UP TOO. Just how do you think they will pay back the 2012 election campaign donors? There will be more guaranteed loans for bankrupting green energy companies you can count on that OLDTIMER. The Dems answer to the debt problem is always raising taxes and it has never worked. SO why not try something totally different like CUTTING SPENDING and living within their means. :x

Well-said Tam, on so many levels. The majority of wealth in the United States is not in the hands of those evil, money-grubbing millionaires and billionaires....it's in the hands of the vast middle class.

And, you hit the nail on the head. Does anyone here (other than OT) really believe that DC politicians, especially donks, are going to raise taxes on the middle class AND cut federal spending in order to balance the budget? :lol:

It's why I've said repeatedly that his outrage at Bush and his policies is either feigned or he's totally delusional. The more it goes, the more I lean towards delusional.

 

[Anonymous]

Now, particularly dumbass liberals often try to argue that George Bush somehow made his war spending "off budget." That is such a pile of crap it is unreal. Who controls the spending? CONGRESS DOES. Congress ALWAYS had the power to cut off funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars any time it wanted. And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively – agreed on how to handle the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was DEMOCRATS who did not want to be in the position of having to either support war funding and enrage their base or vote against it and enrage the American people. So it was NOT George Bush who took war funding "off budget," it was Democrats who were afraid to be held accountable. And every penny that Bush spent on the war and on everything else ultimately showed up in his spending and in his debt.
The problem is that there are truly stupid people who have no clue how government works and live in a world of lies.[/b]

YEP thought so the article was talking about you Oldtimer.

So Tam are you ignorant- or just a flat out liar- or just too lazy to check out what you post... :???:

Until 2007- neither Reid nor Pelosi controlled anything....The Repubs controlled Congress most that time during which they gave GW a rubber stamp to spend anything he wanted- and questioned nothing he did.. Bill Frist was the Senate Majority Leader from 2003-2007 and Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007 (which is supposed to be the appropriations/money controlling body of the Congress)...

Tam- you need to check out your facts before you talk about stupid people :wink: :lol:

 

[hopalong]

Now, particularly dumbass liberals often try to argue that George Bush somehow made his war spending "off budget." That is such a pile of crap it is unreal. Who controls the spending? CONGRESS DOES. Congress ALWAYS had the power to cut off funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars any time it wanted. And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively – agreed on how to handle the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was DEMOCRATS who did not want to be in the position of having to either support war funding and enrage their base or vote against it and enrage the American people. So it was NOT George Bush who took war funding "off budget," it was Democrats who were afraid to be held accountable. And every penny that Bush spent on the war and on everything else ultimately showed up in his spending and in his debt.
The problem is that there are truly stupid people who have no clue how government works and live in a world of lies.[/b]

YEP thought so the article was talking about you Oldtimer.

So Tam are you ignorant- or just a flat out liar- or just too lazy to check out what you post... :???:

Until 2007- neither Reid nor Pelosi controlled anything....The Repubs controlled Congress most that time during which they gave GW a rubber stamp to spend anything he wanted- and questioned nothing he did.. Bill Frist was the Senate Majority Leader from 2003-2007 and Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007 (which is supposed to be the appropriations/money controlling body of the Congress)...

Tam- you need to check out your facts before you talk about stupid people :wink: :lol:

So do you oldtimer! You have been proven to post more lies and an half truths that the rest of the people on here combined!!! Talk about stupid people you are talking about your self!!!'

We are still waiting on proof anyone was harassed!!!!!
That there ever was another web site the people were laughing at us!!!
That Bush told anyone to take an 8 yr coffee break!!!
That whitewing and hypo are the same person!!!!
That Bush gave anyone a rubber stamp!!!!!!
Or congress gave Bush a rubber stamp!!!!

Need I go on????


EH
speak up or admit that you are really a phony!!!!
Show the e mails!!!!!!! give us the website
give us the link on the 8 yr coffee break
the list is too big to add more too at this time!
so will give you chance to man up for once in your miserable drunken life!


EH?????