Proposed budget gets a surplus without cutting entitlements

Post Reply New Topic

You mean phony surpluses chalked full of Bernie Madoff accounting gimicks.

Furthermore Democracy Now and Counterspin are well-known far-left groups. What next, you going to quote from Move-On.org or how about ACORN?

firstly, I was not quoting anyone. Secondly, the fact left-leaning programs have been discussing something that came out of congress is hardly surprising, nor is it indicative of the politics of the proposal; these programs discuss the patriot act, too. Thirdly, don't pretend that you have some sort of 'gotcha' because I'm discussing Democracy Now and Counterspin; I've never made any move towards disguising the fact that I'm a progressive.

The Reid bill? I know his bill is a total farce, chalked full of Bernie Madoff style accounting.

Learn to f*****g read. This is not about the Reid bill, which is a complete capitulation to everything the Republicans wanted.

Okay, Inuyasha, given you are someone who regularly uses the frequently factually wrong trash webstie known as World Net Daily, can you please shutup about other people citing well-done, generally factually accurate, leftist programs whose conclusions you personally disagree with?

Uh, no, we're talking about the Raul Grijalva-Keith Ellison bill, something fiscally and socially irresponsible Republicans and their country club conservative backers made sure never saw the light of day.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... _proposals

It did get on stint of coverage on The Rachel Maddow Show, but given Cenk's recent departure (after being offered a demotion) at MSNBC, it's evident that centre-left progressives walk an very thin line when it comes to MSNBC.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwFkuNQYYDo[/youtube]

Is this is how the US is dying, by country club conservatives legally bribing politicians ("voting with their money") for a relatively small amount to ensure industrial subsidies go to their AgroCorps or Oil MegaCorps? Republican corporate welfare bums are truly the real enemy of America.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 29 Jul 2011, 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'd say the entitlement mentality on all scales is the real enemy. This includes corporate lazy bums, people who think they're entitled to the highest wages or bonuses without having to earn them, b*****s who throw a hissy fit over getting an SUV of the wrong colour on their sweet 16, CEO's who feel entitled to big bucks by just barking on a cell phone while lying on a hammock rather than maintaining quality control and overseeing production, dudes who think no means yes, etc... etc. Douchebaggery is an epidemic brought on by spoiling and overprotectiveness.

I think a lot of the problem with an unjustified sense of entitlement in America concerns the top. I mean, one "entitlement program" people seem to be targetting for cuts is regarded as so because people PAID MONEY into the program their whole lives under the expectation that they'd get something back after a certain age (Social Security, whose only real programs occurred because politicians drained the Social Security fund to finance their own pet projects over the years). Welfare was radically overhauled by Clinton and, from what I'm told, many muncipial governments in the US love "workfare" workers because they can be paid below the minimum wage.

Well I don't really see things from top-down because the masses are the most tyrannical aspect of any society. Power within a hierarchy is merely a social contract. People loan or revoke power to others, which makes authority a position of trust. Cuts to welfare occur because the people let it happen. Without a prevalent anti-welfare sentiment, it would never get any momentum. The manipulators at the top don't brainwash people but they use people's own prejudices against them. Because a severe social stigma against mental illness occurs, people would think nothing of them being thrown out of asylums and into the streets (which has happened under Reagan). If we were to take out handicapped parking however, there would be a shitstorm so this would never happen since we wouldn't allow it to happen.

Anyways I don't mean to be rambling about power and hierarchy and all that, but I just thought it would be important to spell out my underlying assumptions. I'll get back to you on workfare once I do some reading on it. As for social security, I don't see how people think it has outlived its purpose when these days people are constantly changing careers and going to college/uni in their 30's and 40's. Funds for rainy days and retirement are nice and all, but because these days we have to be versatile and reinvest ourselves accordingly when it comes to the workforce so it only makes sense to have a safety net to bring stability to our increasingly uncertain career paths and job security.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 29 Jul 2011, 5:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.

There is no need to balance the budget at all.

We don't even have a Budget right now, the Republicans passed a proposed budget in the House of Representatives months ago, the Democrats in the Senate tabled it and have refused to do their Constitutional Obligations to craft a senate version of the budget. Honestly, it looks like the Democrats want the economy to implode, and trust that their media lapdogs will start smearing the Republicans as being obstructionists.

Face it, the fact we haven't had the Senate even submit a budget proposal for THREE YEARS (two of those years the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate) is inexcusable. You can argue about Paul Ryan's budget not being the greatest, but at least the Republicans actually put a detailed budget together in the House of Representatives; the Democrats in the Senate didn't even bother to take the time to draw up a proposed budget.

The fact some people here just run around screaming the Republicans are being obstructionist are either so ill-informed they didn't realize the fact that this mess of us not having a budget is entirely the Democrat's fault (the near shut down at the start of the year is entirely the fault of the Democrats (because they didn't put a budget together in 2010) or are complete idiots.

Which the heck is it?

And yeah, Orwell and all the other liberals here, I'm calling each of you out on this fact. If the Republicans are the obstructionists, why are they the ones to come up with a budget, and the Democrats didn't even bother to try to put together a budget?

Oh and don't give me the "Blame Bush" bulls***, or the song and dance routine trying to distract from the issue, I want an answer.

You're responding to a thread whose OP is BASED ON A PLAN PROPOSED BY (SOME) DEMOCRATS!! ! F*ck, is the image below what inspires all your statements?



And, yes, there's also the Reid Plan being offerred (which is basically everything the Republicans wanted before shifting the goalposts even FURTHER to the Far-Right)..

The CBO as I recall doesn't score speeches, if the Democrats had a budget why hasn't it been submitted to the floor of the US Senate? Btw, Reid's bill is not a budget, it's a proposal to raise the debt ceiling.

Republicans killed it in committee.

Seriously, were you not paying attention to this thread at all? You've just been spewing the same reflexive garbage you always shout without regard to the fact that it doesn't even make sense in this context.

BTW, the Ryan budget adds $6 TRILLION dollars to the national debt over the next decade. You call that fiscal responsibility?

Random aside: You have been repeating over and over again lately the line "The CBO doesn't score speeches." I know you do not have original thoughts, and especially when you repeat the same line over and over it always comes from somewhere else. Which right-wing talking head fed you that line?

Actually, it was a line concerning the fact of Obama claiming he has a plan and the CBO turned around and said they don't score speeches.

The Ryan Plan was one that slowed the amount of spending, I would argue it didn't go fast enough, but even you beloved Former President Bill Clinton praised Ryan for having the courage to submit something.

Also, I highly doubt Republicans have that much power in any committee in the Senate to kill a budget proposal, and they definately didn't in 2009 and 2010.

The Ryan Plan was slower at growing the debt than Obama's proposal, but so what? Obama is not a legislator anymore. The budget put forward by the Progressive Caucus actually balanced the budget and started us running surpluses.

And don't make assumptions about my views. I think Clinton was a decent President, but I am certainly not a cult follower like you are. I can disagree with Clinton on any number of issues.


Pay attention, nitwit. Budgets originate in the House. The budget referred to in the OP was drafted at roughly the same time as the Ryan budget- after Republicans took the House.