economists favor spending cuts

[wiegie]

it's pretty simple. whoever writes their headlines is as in the tank as you are. the CNBC headline is a whole lot more accurate. how the hell do you take a study where a clear majority of respondents are in favor of "solely or primarily" one solution rather than another, and then portray it as respondents favoring "balance"

you also fail "current events" because if you had been paying attention "Balance" is the term that everyone has been using to describe a situation in which the deficit is reduced by both spending cuts AND tax increases (without too much consideration of the actual proportion used). (The term "balanced" is as opposed to the only-spending-cuts mantra of the GOP.)

[bpwallace49]

the CNBC headline is a whole lot more accurate.

 

That is awesome from Az.

[Azazello1313]

you also fail "current events" because if you had been paying attention "Balance" is the term that everyone has been using to describe a situation in which the deficit is reduced by both spending cuts AND tax increases (without too much consideration of the actual proportion used). (The term "balanced" is as opposed to the only-spending-cuts mantra of the GOP.)

 

wow, you are grasping at straws. look at all these accurate headlines, from across the political spectrum.

 

but yeah, they're all saying "yay for obama's approach" and "boo for the GOP approach", gotcha. even though I've heard many republicans say that increased revenues in some form will probably be part of any long term budget deal, they just want to make sure it's primarily spending cuts and holding firm on these smaller deals is the only way to ensure that. but hey, if it's all you're concerned about, you can win the stupid rhetorical game all day long if they end up balancing the budget with 99% cuts and 1% new taxes. you can call it a win for obama and I promise to be happy too.

[Azazello1313]

That is awesome from Az.

 

not sure why. are you confusing CNBC with MSNBC?

[bpwallace49]

not sure why. are you confusing CNBC with MSNBC?

 

DAMMIT

 

 

[wiegie]

wow, you are grasping at straws. look at all these accurate headlines, from across the political spectrum.

 

but yeah, they're all saying "yay for obama's approach" and "boo for the GOP approach", gotcha. even though I've heard many republicans say that increased revenues in some form will probably be part of any long term budget deal, they just want to make sure it's primarily spending cuts and holding firm on these smaller deals is the only way to ensure that. but hey, if it's all you're concerned about, you can win the stupid rhetorical game all day long if they end up balancing the budget with 99% cuts and 1% new taxes. you can call it a win for obama and I promise to be happy too.

are you saying that the 235 Representatives and 41 Senators listed here are not representative of standard GOP views on the subject:

 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/fil...%20Congress.pdf

 

(I will note that only 7 GOP representatives and 7 GOP senators have not signed this pledge.)

 

 

 

So let me basically lay it all out for you: The overwhelming majority of business economists surveyed recommend a deficit reduction strategy that almost all GOP politicians in office have pledged that they will NOT follow.

Edited August 24, 2011 by wiegie

[Azazello1313]

 

paul ryan, tom coburn, john boehner, mitch mcconnell, mccain and cornyn....would you like me to go on, because I can?

[wiegie]

you also fail "current events" because if you had been paying attention "Balance" is the term that everyone has been using to describe a situation in which the deficit is reduced by both spending cuts AND tax increases (without too much consideration of the actual proportion used). (The term "balanced" is as opposed to the only-spending-cuts mantra of the GOP.)

Chad Moutray, the person in charge of the survey, replied back to me concerning what is meant by the term "balanced" in the NABE headline:

 

wiegie, "balanced" in this case is a reference to both spending cuts and tax cuts (as Obama would say).

[wiegie]

...mitch mcconnell, ...would you like me to go on, because I can?

yes, please do go on because your links are enlightening

Mitch McConnell: No Deal On Debt Limit With Tax Revenue Increases

Posted: 05/12/11 02:24 PM ET

 

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans laid out a series of demands on a debt ceiling deal during a Thursday meeting with the president, asking for entitlement cuts and spending caps, but no tax revenue increases, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

 

President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House on Thursday for Senate Republicans as part of a series of discussions he is having with different factions of Congress over raising the government’s debt limit. The government is expected to reach the current debt limit by May 16, meaning the Treasury will not be able to take on additional loans to pay its obligations. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in a May 2 letter to Congress the Treasury could function using “extraordinary measures” until about Aug. 2 before defaulting on some of its loans.

 

Republicans in the Senate have said they will not vote for a bill that increases the debt limit unless Congress approves major efforts to reduce the deficit along with it. But McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Thursday that his caucus will not agree to revenue-raising measures as part of the debt ceiling deal, arguing tax issues are too complex to tackle by August.

 

“We are talking here about spending reductions,” he said at a press conference. “There will be no tax increases in connection with raising the debt ceiling. We know what the options are, the only question remaining is what we will pick up and agree to on a bipartisan basis.”

 

President Barack Obama told Democrats on Wednesday that he opposes spending caps as part of the debt limit deal, because they could impact Medicare for seniors. The president, along with Democrat leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has called for a deal that cuts spending and raises revenue by ending certain tax breaks and subsidies.

 

McConnell said Obama heard from a number of GOP senators during the Thursday meeting, during which they shared their thoughts for tackling the deficit. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) were among the senators who spoke, he said.

 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama also told Republicans at the meeting that taxes must be on the table. Any long-term plan for deficit reduction has to include "all aspects of spending, including spending through the tax code," Carney said.

 

Although McConnell declined to comment on the statements made by members of his caucus, he said they generally supported spending caps and changes to entitlements, and would oppose tax increases.

 

In the next five to 10 years, McConnell said he wants to see cuts to entitlements, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. He said he would not support a deal that does not include long-term changes to the entitlement programs, including eligibility changes, but declined to comment on whether he would support Medicare means-testing or raising the income cap on Social Security.

 

McConnell said the government has already done the necessary studies to enact such changes before August, the deadline for extending the debt limit.

 

“I view this as a major opportunity to do something for the country," he said. "Divided government is the best time -- and some would argue the only time -- when you can do really big stuff."

As for the others, they signed a pledge not to increase taxes, so either they (1) were lying when they signed the pledge OR (2) were lying in your articles OR (3) signed the pledge after your articles came out OR (4) they agree that fixing the deficit will require taxes increases but they just won't vote for them. Which is it?

[Crazysight]

Here's the first place to make those needed cuts. Food stamps are supposed to be a charitable cause, but there are WAY too many fat arses and deadbeats abusing the system here:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/usa-becomes-food-sta...-160645036.html

 

Undercover cops should be arresting the droves of deadbeats who are blatantly abusing the food stamp system these days, and banning them from it for life. I had someone try to sell me a 250 dollar card a few weeks ago for 150 dollars. It's more common than people realize....

Edited August 24, 2011 by Crazysight

[gbpfan1231]

Chad Moutray, the person in charge of the survey, replied back to me concerning what is meant by the term "balanced" in the NABE headline:

Cool - as long as the Packers run the ball one time per game they now have a balanced offensive attack.

[wiegie]

Cool - as long as the Packers run the ball one time per game they now have a balanced offensive attack.

and what's funny sad about your analogy is that all of the Packers who are in favor of a passing only approach would just take their ball and go home if such a strategy were attempted even if it meant they would lose the game

[SEC=UGA]

and what's funny sad about your analogy is that all of the Packers who are in favor of a passing only approach would just take their ball and go home if such a strategy were attempted even if it meant they would lose the game

 

No one outside of WI likes the Packers.

[Big John]

No one outside of WI likes the Packers.

Ahem

[SEC=UGA]

Ahem

 

I'm gonna have Sheriff Warren hunt you down like you are an illegal Messican.

Edited August 24, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[Ursa Majoris]

Food stamps are supposed to be a charitable cause

Really?