Pelosi et al are shameless

[cutterx2202]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/215557570...=2114913880001

It's 95% Pelosi talking, so the source of the news channel is irrelevant - these are her own words. I realize some of you have an irrational fear of Fox (AKA: Foxiphobic).

This is the kind of shameless lying, deceit, and incompetence conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis when arguing points.

Pelosi is acting as if there wasn't already a tax hike on the "rich." News flash: There was in January. Asking for ADDITIONAL tax hikes on the rich before cutting is moronic. She's denying there's even a spending problem. On TOP of that, she's saying most of the debt is Bush's fault. (...wow). We're in Obama's second term. It's irrational and childish to keep blaming Bush for current issues. Even if I grant you (hypothetically) that Bush had some responsibility on the initial problem, you'd be naive to say Obama/Pelosi haven't dwarfed whatever affect he's had in the past with THEIR current debts.

America MUST cut spending, and cut it massively. Bottom line. It's come to the point that if someone's primary political goal isn't to cut the spending and pay off the debt first and foremost, it's not even worth starting an argument with them as they're delusional about the state of our nation. All other issues are secondary and will, in fact, improve with no debt and a budget in the green (or balanced).

Open your eyes and see her for the scum she is (and other far left wing nuts like her) for her flat out deceit.

Edit:
(because it's getting longer and expecting people to read the whole thing is not going to happen):

-Make a law that congress may not have a red budget until the debt is paid off unless overruled by a 3/4 majority that renews each year.
-Also, a minimal amount that covers interest + 1% of the debt must be paid off yearly.

Personally, scrapping the health care bill in it's entirety would save a very large chunk of the budget. (Re-do the bill without the mandate because we have proven we can't afford it) Second, across the board cuts would be the most reasonable way to do it after that. You'd preserve budget ratios for each dept that would make no dept have more undue hardship than another. I would also put some common sense restrictions on entitlements, such as required drug testing, putting foods stamps on a special debit card so only necessities could be bought. Without cutting entitlements, we as a nation would get more bang for our buck and it would actually start helping people out of their situation, rather than feeding it. I'll update if I think of more, but it's late and I'm almost ready to call it a night as well. Good night everyone.

-Healthcare bill facts from can be found at CBO

So,

Where would you cut spending so that we can start paying off our debt?

[Rukentuts]

America MUST cut spending, and cut it massively. Bottom line.

Sure. We can start by cutting spending to those red states that get more from the fed than they put in.

[Spectral]

This is the kind of shameless lying, deceit, and incompetence conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis when arguing points.

That made me laugh a little, thanks!

It's irrational and childish to keep blaming Bush for current issues. Even if I grant you (hypothetically) that Bush had some responsibility on the initial problem, you'd be naive to say Obama/Pelosi haven't dwarfed whatever affect he's had in the past with THEIR current debts.

Well, no. Bush's wars alone account for more spending than the entirety of the deficits incurred under Obama.

[cutterx2202]

Seeing as you're both already on ignore, I'm not even going to look into what you wrote, but I think it's safe to say you did not speak to the spending problem, denied it exists, went off on something unrelated or made an ad hominem attack. Is this correct? Someone besides someone on my ignore list will problably have to confirm this for me as I'm not looking to be baited into a ban by those immune.

Infracted: Please do not insult other users

[Kalis]

I realize some of you have an irrational fear of Fox (AKA: Foxiphobic).

Fox News, like any partisan news outlet, isn't worth watching for any reason other than comedy value.

Open your eyes and see her for the scum she is (and other far left wing nuts like her) for her flat out deceit.

Far left?

[Endus]

Pelosi is acting as if there wasn't already a tax hike on the "rich." News flash: There was in January. Asking for ADDITIONAL tax hikes on the rich before cutting is moronic.

Why?

On TOP of that, she's saying most of the debt is Bush's fault. (...wow). We're in Obama's second term. It's irrational and childish to keep blaming Bush for current issues. Even if I grant you (hypothetically) that Bush had some responsibility on the initial problem, you'd be naive to say Obama/Pelosi haven't dwarfed whatever affect he's had in the past with THEIR current debts.

Not naive. Sensible. Obama didn't start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are entirely on Bush. Sitting Presidents can't just say "well, we're just cutting loose on whatever the prior administration did". Government doesn't work that way.

America MUST cut spending, and cut it massively. Bottom line. It's come to the point that if someone's primary political goal isn't to cut the spending and pay off the debt first and foremost, it's not even worth starting an argument with them as they're delusional about the state of our nation. All other issues are secondary and will, in fact, improve with no debt and a budget in the green (or balanced).

The simple reality is that the way forward is to 1> increase taxes, and 2> cut military spending massively. Like 80% or so.

The difficulty is that so many people in the US freak the hell out when you mention either and refuse to acknowledge that either's an option. Well, suck it up.

One stat mentioned, for instance, was that the top 1% in the US pay 37% of all the income taxes. Wallace tried to play this off as if that was unacceptable. Well, his complaint is bollocks. According to the latest data I can find, the top 1% in the US also hold about 37% of the wealth in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_..._United_States

In short, they're paying pretty much exactly their fair share. Probably less than they should be, by any rational account, since the system isn't designed to be zero-sum; there's a lot of Americans who pay little to no income tax due to not making enough money, and charging them income tax would cause undue hardship. This means that the people making up the difference aren't the wealthy, who're just paying their share given the wealth inequality, it's the middle class.

Yes, spending needs to be cut. If you're Republican, and you're seriously going to claim to be fiscally conservative, I cannot grasp how you could accept the current state of military spending. Even cut by 80%, the US would still have higher military spending, by a significant margin, than any other nation in the world. You'd still be the strongest military in the world. If that's not acceptable to you, then you aren't really willing to discuss spending cuts in a reasonable manner.

[Deadvolcanoes]

America MUST cut spending, and cut it massively.

No, that's really not true at all. We're not talking about a household budget here. The rules are different. Our current debt is completely controllable and its not even that bad. I know 16 trillion looks like a big number to all the freshmen republicans, but they really need to stop freaking out.

[Underverse]

Okay sounds good lets slash military budgets in half

[Gwiez]

Austerity is not how to boost employment.

You can't just say "X number of years have passed, you're not allowed to look at what happened during them". Two wars off budget, tax cuts, and a continuation of Clinton's deregulation *must* be examined as the source of the problem.

Yes, our debt as a percentage of GDP is high, but not disasterously high. It's about the same as our last large recovery. Reading your sig, I wonder if you've put yourself on ignore.

[08nolanni]

Isn't the Debt per a person still manageable ?

It's also pretty Funny the first two comments debunked OP

It's a double edge sword, You Cut Spending in all states (Which should in theory hurt Red states more than blue.) You than get a generation of Red states who will vote for whoever supports them.

Also won't military spending cause huge Job loss ? In Australia ATM were continuing to have redundancies across the Private and Public Sector, from Spending cuts.

[Adam Jensen]

Why?

Because they're job creators.

Not really.

[Masark]

Yes, spending needs to be cut. If you're Republican, and you're seriously going to claim to be fiscally conservative, I cannot grasp how you could accept the current state of military spending.

No, it's American fiscal conservatism, which is completely different than the fiscal conservatism practised by the Canadian Liberals (and not practised by the Canadian Conservatives).

Conservative : A person who favours maintenance of the status quo

The status quo in the USA has been deficits deficits deficits since 1959.

[hakujinbakasama]

Okay sounds good lets slash military budgets in half

Defense budget cuts aren't the problem. Accountability for spending, or lack there of, is the actual problem. You can "cut" money everywhere but that doesn't mean it's going to "fix" things. It will probably make these worse.

When you increase taxes on a company they don't fix the budget; they generally keep the same shitty practices but cut the pay and benefits to the little guy (average worker.)

[Noomz]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/215557570...=2114913880001

It's 95% Pelosi talking, so the source of the news channel is irrelevant - these are her own words. I realize some of you have an irrational fear of Fox (AKA: Foxiphobic).

This is the kind of shameless lying, deceit, and incompetence conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis when arguing points.

Pelosi is acting as if there wasn't already a tax hike on the "rich." News flash: There was in January. Asking for ADDITIONAL tax hikes on the rich before cutting is moronic. She's denying there's even a spending problem. On TOP of that, she's saying most of the debt is Bush's fault. (...wow). We're in Obama's second term. It's irrational and childish to keep blaming Bush for current issues. Even if I grant you (hypothetically) that Bush had some responsibility on the initial problem, you'd be naive to say Obama/Pelosi haven't dwarfed whatever affect he's had in the past with THEIR current debts.

America MUST cut spending, and cut it massively. Bottom line. It's come to the point that if someone's primary political goal isn't to cut the spending and pay off the debt first and foremost, it's not even worth starting an argument with them as they're delusional about the state of our nation. All other issues are secondary and will, in fact, improve with no debt and a budget in the green (or balanced).

Open your eyes and see her for the scum she is (and other far left wing nuts like her) for her flat out deceit.

If Obama cuts spending on things, people will hate him for it and cry about it.
if Obama wants to raise taxes instead, people will hate him for it and cry about it.

[Felya]

Defense budget cuts aren't the problem. Accountability for spending, or lack there of, is the actual problem. You can "cut" money everywhere but that doesn't mean it's going to "fix" things. It will probably make these worse.

How do you hold them accountable for spending?

[DeltrusDisc]

Why don't we pay the politicians less and cut spending on the military? That'd help... A LOT.

But no politician would want to do either.

Thus we are in a downward spiral, yay!

[Felya]

Why don't we pay the politicians less and cut spending on the military? That'd help... A LOT.

But no politician would want to do either.

Thus we are in a downward spiral, yay!

I think the pay most politicians get as far as salary, is tiny compared to their over all assets.

---------- Post added 2013-02-10 at 11:42 PM ----------

Seeing as you're both already on ignore, I'm not even going to look into what you wrote, but I think it's safe to say you did not speak to the spending problem, denied it exists, went off on something unrelated or made an ad hominem attack. Is this correct? Someone besides someone on my ignore list will problably have to confirm this for me as I'm not looking to be baited into a ban by those immune.

That's strange. If you have an important and righteous cause, why would you ignore anyone? At the very least, every person you respond to is a bump to the thread. The more you respond, the more people will see your important message. Putting people on ignore is the opposite of opening people eyes to the horrors of Pelosi. Even more so, if you ignore them for having flawed logic. Because it gives you the opportunity to expose the opposition as flawed. It even makes people think their right, even though you have evidence to the contrary. You are helping them perpetuate reasons why Pelosi is not horrible.

It's like getting on a soap box, while trying to be quiet. It's counter productive...

[Verain]

Why are the wars, authorized by a majority blue Congress, "Bush's wars"? Especially after Obama escalated in Afghanistan?


Both parties are responsible for the wars.

[cutterx2202]

No, that's really not true at all. We're not talking about a household budget here. The rules are different. Our current debt is completely controllable and its not even that bad. I know 16 trillion looks like a big number to all the freshmen republicans, but they really need to stop freaking out.

. . . *shakes head.

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 12:29 AM ----------

If Obama cuts spending on things, people will hate him for it and cry about it.
if Obama wants to raise taxes instead, people will hate him for it and cry about it.

So, if he's going to be hated either way, yet he choses to go down the destructive path, does that speak to his moral character and/or motives in your book?

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 12:30 AM ----------

Isn't the Debt per a person still manageable ?

It's also pretty Funny the first two comments debunked OP

It's a double edge sword, You Cut Spending in all states (Which should in theory hurt Red states more than blue.) You than get a generation of Red states who will vote for whoever supports them.

Also won't military spending cause huge Job loss ? In Australia ATM were continuing to have redundancies across the Private and Public Sector, from Spending cuts.

How did two comments without substance debunk a real problem?
A managable debt/person would be zero, just saying, seeing as a very large chunk of Americans are deemed too poor to pay taxes.

[DeltrusDisc]

I think the pay most politicians get as far as salary, is tiny compared to their over all assets.

Allow me to reword then, if you would!

Pay and benefits. ^_<