• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House-No more Spending Cuts

It's probably more like GOPers refuse to
get rid of $3.77 trillion dollars in offense spending and/or corporate subsidies.

What corporate "subsidies " ?

Point to the specific outlays in the budget that prove Corporations are recieving subsidies
 
Correct; and of course, devoid of specifics.

What specifics do you want or is it just your attempt to further divert from the thread topic? Did Obama submit a 3.77 trillion dollar budget? Is that specific enough for you or do you want the line items that addresses and if so why? Isn't it specific enough for you that Obama has yet to have anything less than a trillion dollar deficit? Seems being very liberal means nothing but diversion from reality.
 
What corporate "subsidies " ?

Point to the specific outlays in the budget that prove Corporations are recieving subsidies

Let' see a liberal answer that question and of course being a conservative and wanting to really provide some help to the individual here are the line items in the budget for both revenue and expenses. Don't see corporate subsidies anywhere but maybe I am not looking hard enough.

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
 
What specifics do you want or is it just your attempt to further divert from the thread topic? Did Obama submit a 3.77 trillion dollar budget? Is that specific enough for you or do you want the line items that addresses and if so why? Isn't it specific enough for you that Obama has yet to have anything less than a trillion dollar deficit? Seems being very liberal means nothing but diversion from reality.

Posing a question is not diverting; dodging them is.

Meanwhile, no. The Executive does not submit a budget, per se. It submits a budget request, or if will: a request for spending authorizations to fund priorities, which can be a range of things, not limited to, but very-much inclusive of stuff urged by former Admins and known to be widely supported in Congress -- and thus must be considered within the context of stuff that has to be paid for.

For example:

Bush urged passage of Medicare Part D, a gift to Big Pharma and widely considered one of the worst bills, fiscally, in US history. But it's now there, and must be paid for, and wishing the Boehner Congress to repeal a whopper gift to one of their more beloved special interests is folly. So it's gotta be funded, like it or not.

Bush Admin overnight, nearly, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, Home Land Security, the boondoggle to end all boondoggles, whose new HQ will surpass the Pentagon in size. It's far more than we need, but we have it. Also, we have the fear by presidents and the Lege that cutting it is political suicide if some attack were to follow soon after. So once again, like it or not, it's gotta be in there since it's a cost that's not going anywhere.

So one should ask, if they hate new spending programs, who created what? Who's the real culprit in creating a larger government and the need for more revenue to cover it?

Shall we parse? You know, drill it down to the actual specifics?
 
Posing a question is not diverting; dodging them is.

Meanwhile, no. The Executive does not submit a budget, per se. It submits a budget request, or if will: a request for spending authorizations to fund priorities, which can be a range of things, not limited to, but very-much inclusive of stuff urged by former Admins and known to be widely supported in Congress -- and thus must be considered within the context of stuff that has to be paid for.

For example:

Bush urged passage of Medicare Part D, a gift to Big Pharma and widely considered one of the worst bills, fiscally, in US history. But it's now there, and must be paid for, and wishing the Boehner Congress to repeal a whopper gift to one of their more beloved special interests is folly. So it's gotta be funded, like it or not.

Bush Admin overnight, nearly, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, Home Land Security, the boondoggle to end all boondoggles, whose new HQ will surpass the Pentagon in size. It's far more than we need, but we have it. Also, we have the fear by presidents and the Lege that cutting it is political suicide if some attack were to follow soon after. So once again, like it or not, it's gotta be in there since it's a cost that's not going anywhere.

So one should ask, if they hate new spending programs, who created what? Who's the real culprit in creating a larger government and the need for more revenue to cover it?

Shall we parse? You know, drill it down to the actual specifics?

Aw, yes, another attempt to divert to Bush and away from the Obama record. Apparently because Bush did it that gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids? What is it about people like you who cannot remain on topic and hold your own accountable for failures.

You want to play a semantic game, what is the difference between a budget and a budget request. You telling me that Obama didn't submit a 3.77 trillion dollar budget for approval? All budgets come in the form of a request but that doesn't make it any less of a budget.

I have given you specifics in previous posts as to what I would cut and I am sure someone as intelligent as you could do the same thing by actually looking at the budget but rather than cut you would reward bad behavior by increasing taxes which will do nothing to put 21 plus million Americans back to work full time.

Now you can continue to blame Bush until hell freezes over but that won't change the reality that Obama has done nothing to reduce what you call waste in the Federal Govt and in fact has promoted more in the form of Obamacare. It is a fact that Obama has added more debt in less than 5 years than any other President in history and is on target to surpass all other Presidents in terms of debt created. Parse that reality.
 
LOL, the specifics are Obama has added over 6.2 trillion dollars to the debt in less than 5 years and has no interest in cutting spending to address the problem. Even with that govt. spending and failure to put people back to work the GDP growth this year may even be in contraction showing that govt. spending isn't the answer, private sector growth is and Obama will never focus on that.

I suppose it's not possible for him to do so, since he never ran a business and doesn't understand what's involved, but what about the plethora of czars making big bucks working with him? Is there no one in this administration that has the knowledge that he lacks, or are they in the positions they are in because they agree with his thinking? I suspect the latter, which explains a lot about what is going on in DC. Lucy and Ethel appear to be in charge in DC, but they were in a comedy series! DC thinking has become very Non Funny, IMO! Maybe a Pawn Stars type show will become the norm here now? :shock:
 
Aw, yes, another attempt to divert to Bush and away from the Obama record. Apparently because Bush did it that gave Obama the authority to put Bush spending on steroids? What is it about people like you who cannot remain on topic and hold your own accountable for failures.

You want to play a semantic game, what is the difference between a budget and a budget request. You telling me that Obama didn't submit a 3.77 trillion dollar budget for approval? All budgets come in the form of a request but that doesn't make it any less of a budget.

I have given you specifics in previous posts as to what I would cut and I am sure someone as intelligent as you could do the same thing by actually looking at the budget but rather than cut you would reward bad behavior by increasing taxes which will do nothing to put 21 plus million Americans back to work full time.

Now you can continue to blame Bush until hell freezes over but that won't change the reality that Obama has done nothing to reduce what you call waste in the Federal Govt and in fact has promoted more in the form of Obamacare. It is a fact that Obama has added more debt in less than 5 years than any other President in history and is on target to surpass all other Presidents in terms of debt created. Parse that reality.

Yes; I still blame Bush for creating the boondoggles he did. Imagine that. Moreover, I still blame the Roman Catholic Church for the Inquisitions.

And hold onto your hat, Connie ... I still blame al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks!!!

(tip: time does not remove culpability for stuff done in the past)
 
Yes; I still blame Bush for creating the boondoggles he did. Imagine that. Moreover, I still blame the Roman Catholic Church for the Inquisitions.

And hold onto your hat, Connie ... I still blame al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks!!!

(tip: time does not remove culpability for stuff done in the past)

Then you ignore the responsibilities of leadership which are to play the hand you are dealt. As someone who professes to be "very liberal" I am sure that you voted for Obama to correct those problems of that evil Bush but rather than correct the problems he has made them worse. His specific record is there for all to see and the topic of this thread is no more spending cuts as if Obama every proposed any in the first place
 
Then you ignore the responsibilities of leadership which are to play the hand you are dealt. As someone who professes to be "very liberal" I am sure that you voted for Obama to correct those problems of that evil Bush but rather than correct the problems he has made them worse. His specific record is there for all to see and the topic of this thread is no more spending cuts as if Obama every proposed any in the first place

Will Congress defund HLS or Medicare Part D? If not, who is responsible for them?

And as an aside, blaming Obama solely for programs created before him, which cannot be defunded given the political realities today, is like blaming Pope Francis for the Spanish Inquisition and not the Archbishop of Seville.
 
Will Congress defund HLS or Medicare Part D? If not, who is responsible for them?

And as an aside, blaming Obama solely for programs created before him, which cannot be defunded given the political realities today, is like blaming Pope Francis for the Spanish Inquisition and not the Archbishop of Seville.

Congress was under control of the Democrats from 2007 through 2010. Please tell me any cuts Obama or Congress has proposed?
 
Posing a question is not diverting; dodging them is.

Meanwhile, no. The Executive does not submit a budget, per se. It submits a budget request, or if will: a request for spending authorizations to fund priorities, which can be a range of things, not limited to, but very-much inclusive of stuff urged by former Admins and known to be widely supported in Congress -- and thus must be considered within the context of stuff that has to be paid for.

For example:

Bush urged passage of Medicare Part D, a gift to Big Pharma and widely considered one of the worst bills, fiscally, in US history. But it's now there, and must be paid for, and wishing the Boehner Congress to repeal a whopper gift to one of their more beloved special interests is folly. So it's gotta be funded, like it or not.

Bush Admin overnight, nearly, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, Home Land Security, the boondoggle to end all boondoggles, whose new HQ will surpass the Pentagon in size. It's far more than we need, but we have it. Also, we have the fear by presidents and the Lege that cutting it is political suicide if some attack were to follow soon after. So once again, like it or not, it's gotta be in there since it's a cost that's not going anywhere.

So one should ask, if they hate new spending programs, who created what? Who's the real culprit in creating a larger government and the need for more revenue to cover it?

Shall we parse? You know, drill it down to the actual specifics?

Greetings, Sisyphus. :2wave:

It's ironic that you mentioned Medicare Part D, since I understand that it's the only program that returns money to the Treasury each year! :shock:.
 
Out till later. :2wave:

Housework beckons, darn it!.

Be well.
 
Last edited:

Do you understand that CBO takes the information it is given them by the Congress along with Congressional assumptions and come up with an analysis. If the information is inaccurate or the assumptions wrong then the analysis will be wrong. This is a 2011 article and I posted a 2013 article that provides actual specific data. Is it just possible that you have been lied to and don't have all the facts?
 
Congress was under control of the Democrats from 2007 through 2010. Please tell me any cuts Obama or Congress has proposed?

so you blame democrats in congress for any problems in 2007-2010, but not the republican controlled house for the problems in 2011-2013.

kind of a double standard don't you think?
 
Do you understand that CBO takes the information it is given them by the Congress along with Congressional assumptions and come up with an analysis. If the information is inaccurate or the assumptions wrong then the analysis will be wrong. This is a 2011 article and I posted a 2013 article that provides actual specific data. Is it just possible that you have been lied to and don't have all the facts?


No. I understand what CBO does: economic analysis so as to inform Congress in the hope that they can vote with benefit of information and not in a vacuum. OMB does the same for the Exec Branch.
 
so you blame democrats in congress for any problems in 2007-2010, but not the republican controlled house for the problems in 2011-2013.

kind of a double standard don't you think?

Do you know the difference between a Democrat controlled CONGRESS and a Republican controlled HOUSE? You seem to buy what the left tells you but ignore the reality. Please explain to me why there are dozens of bills passed by the House that are sitting in Harry Reid's desk yet it is the Republican House that is called Obstructionist? Want to talk about double standards, first learn the definition and then look in the mirror.
 
No. I understand what CBO does: economic analysis so as to inform Congress in the hope that they can vote with benefit of information and not in a vacuum. OMB does the same for the Exec Branch.

The CBO is non partisan but does take what the Congress gives them and then provides the analysis. What makes the CBO more accurate than any other independent source that doesn't use Congressional data and assumptions? Did you read the Forbes Article? What in that article is false and is Medicare Part D the albatross that liberals claim or is this just another liberal diversion from their own failures?
 
The CBO is non partisan but does take what the Congress gives them and then provides the analysis. What makes the CBO more accurate than any other independent source that doesn't use Congressional data and assumptions? Did you read the Forbes Article? What in that article is false and is Medicare Part D the albatross that liberals claim or is this just another liberal diversion from their own failures?

No. I do not read it since a once great journal is now a rag since Malcolm Forbes' idiot child runs it.
 
No. I do not read it since a once great journal is now a rag since Malcolm Forbes' idiot child runs it.

I see but you do read leftwing blogs that fill your head with misinformation and brainwashing. That apparently is ok. Suggest you read the article and tell me what is a lie rather than discounting the article because of the source. The source never is the issue the data presented it.
 
I see but you do read leftwing blogs that fill your head with misinformation and brainwashing. That apparently is ok. Suggest you read the article and tell me what is a lie rather than discounting the article because of the source. The source never is the issue the data presented it.

Nope; I am as averse to biased and cherry-picked data which is parsed in a way so as to utterly distort the facts, whether Conservative or Liberal. In fact, I've not only never quoted or linked to a Left Wing Blog, you'd be hard pressed to google a single sentence of what I've written anywhere on this site and see it's parroted on a left wing blog.

But it's a benefit of being informed: you can write about stuff and not have to copy-paste.
 
Nope; I am as averse to biased and cherry-picked data which is parsed in a way so as to utterly distort the facts, whether Conservative or Liberal. In fact, I've not only never quoted or linked to a Left Wing Blog, you'd be hard pressed to google a single sentence of what I've written anywhere on this site and see it's parroted on a left wing blog.

But it's a benefit of being informed: you can write about stuff and not have to copy-paste.

Apparently that allows to you ignore actual data as well. You say you want specific data but then when given the data you ignore it. How convenient and you claim to be informed? I have seen no example of you being informed especially when it comes to data and actual results.
 
Apparently that allows to you ignore actual data as well. You say you want specific data but then when given the data you ignore it. How convenient and you claim to be informed? I have seen no example of you being informed especially when it comes to data and actual results.

Sure, if the article has actual data and not data that's been parsed in service of Stevie's priority numero uno: be a supply-side apologist and defend everything his beloved GOP does.
 
Back
Top Bottom