Ouch

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

so maybe they're finally listening to their public, who is concerned about the budget?

[scandal 951]

so maybe they're finally listening to their public, who is concerned about the budget?

So by your logic their "public" wasn't concerned about the budget during the Bush years? Interesting. Glad they've found religion all of a sudden.

[B_J 2,752]

I wonder how Democratic Senators voted during the Bush years.

[dalegg 143]

Why do we care about the Senators anyway? They aren't the issue.

[mawilson 2,133]

So by your logic their "public" wasn't concerned about the budget during the Bush years? Interesting. Glad they've found religion all of a sudden.

Well the deficits weren't in the trillions under Bush, and well under 10 percent as a percentage of GDP.

And yes, it was wrong to raise the debt limit 74 times before without addressing the underlying causes - better late than never.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

So by your logic their "public" wasn't concerned about the budget during the Bush years? Interesting. Glad they've found religion all of a sudden.

what's religion got to do with it?

[scandal 951]

what's religion got to do with it?

Why, that ole' time religion, of course.

As in, the religion of fiscal responsibility. New converts are always the most passionate believers.

[dalegg 143]

You guys know why there are such things as "Tea Party" candidates, right? The movement didn't get started to find Obama's Birth Certificate. It got founded because Republicans were tired of Republicans not acting like Republicans. So every time you say Republcians "didn't care" about the Bush deficits, remember that, and remember that a lot of them lost their jobs in 2006. That wasn't just because everyone was tired of the war either. By this time, people were apathetic about voting for candidates who kept claiming to be fiscally responsible but when it came down to it, they didn't put their (or our) money where their mouths are.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

Why, that ole' time religion, of course.

As in, the religion of fiscal responsibility. New converts are always the most passionate believers.

so is this religion a "protected" class?

[mawilson 2,133]

You guys know why there are such things as "Tea Party" candidates, right? The movement didn't get started to find Obama's Birth Certificate. It got founded because Republicans were tired of Republicans not acting like Republicans. So every time you say Republcians "didn't care" about the Bush deficits, remember that, and remember that a lot of them lost their jobs in 2006. That wasn't just because everyone was tired of the war either. By this time, people were apathetic about voting for candidates who kept claiming to be fiscally responsible but when it came down to it, they didn't put their (or our) money where their mouths are.

You're probably right, but I actually don't care what the reasons are.

If they want to balance the budget because they are racists or because they hate Obama,

balancing the budget is still the right thing to do.

[scandal 951]

If they want to balance the budget because they are racists or because they hate Obama,

balancing the budget is still the right thing to do.

And yet, no one is talking at this point of balancing the budget or even of a "grand bargain" for $4Trillion or so in deficit reduction - which is what Obama was shooting for as recently as last week. At this point any of the plans being discussed - Boehner, Reid - are much smaller. $900B for the House GOP, about $2.5T in the Senate. And none of them have a hope of passage.

A few days ago I posted David Brooks piece about grand bargain and I remember you scoffing at it. That's what balancing the budget is going to need - a large scale compromise that takes EVERYONE's sacred cows and offers to slaughter them: Pentagon gets cut, Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut, taxes are raised. No one is spared. If and when Congress ever gets serious about doing the People's business, this is what they will need to do. I'm not hearing the Tea Party members saying anything along such lines of compromise, meaning they're no more serious about really tackling the budget than anyone else. All of them want to sacrifice the other guy's sacred cow but not their own.

[mawilson 2,133]

A few days ago I posted David Brooks piece about grand bargain and I remember you scoffing at it. That's what balancing the budget is going to need - a large scale compromise that takes EVERYONE's sacred cows and offers to slaughter them: Pentagon gets cut, Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut, taxes are raised. No one is spared. If and when Congress ever gets serious about doing the People's business, this is what they will need to do. I'm not hearing the Tea Party members saying anything along such lines of compromise, meaning they're no more serious about really tackling the budget than anyone else. All of them want to sacrifice the other guy's sacred cow but not their own.

In my book, "no-one is spared" means *everyone* should get a tax hike to share the burden.

If there are tax hikes, everyone - the poor, the middle class and yes, the 250k+ crowd -

should get a tax hike. Which means rolling back the Bush tax cuts for *everyone*.

I scoffed at it because the Republican-Democrat regimers will never do it. They'll raise

taxes on the rich, sure, but they'll never touch Johnny Middle-Class or cut Medicare or

Social Security.

But ultimately, I just don't believe that taxes should be raised without safeguards to

keep spending under control.

[scandal 951]

In my book, "no-one is spared" means *everyone* should get a tax hike to share the burden.

If there are tax hikes, everyone - the poor, the middle class and yes, the 250k+ crowd -

should get a tax hike. Which means rolling back the Bush tax cuts for *everyone*.

I scoffed at it because the Republican-Democrat regimers will never do it. They'll raise

taxes on the rich, sure, but they'll never touch Johnny Middle-Class or cut Medicare or

Social Security.

But ultimately, I just don't believe that taxes should be raised without safeguards to

keep spending under control.

I essentially agree with everything you've said here.

[mawilson 2,133]

I essentially agree with everything you've said here.