Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Republicans and the deficit, the ongoing joke of the "fiscal conservative" party, has been exposed once again:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/11/politics/gop-business-tax-cut/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Even thought the party is always insisting that everything has to be budget neutral and that you cannot have any spending increase without an offset somewhere else decides that we can just do without $287 billion.

$4 billion for the border crisis? Too much! We can't afford it!
$11 billion for roads? Too much! We can't afford it.
$35 billions for veterans? Too much. We can't afford it.

Cut $287 billion from the budget and give it back to small business? We can totally do that!

That's....

Weird.

Must be a tactic to get the Senate to the negotiating table.

Anyone wanna bet it's DOA?

It won't be made into law.

What will happen though is that the Republican party can make the claim, "WE WERE GIVING YOU $287 BILLION BUT THE OBAMANAZIS SHUT US DOWN" to help secure some votes.

If they thought the bill were actually going to go through, they probably wouldn't be trying to destroy the US government with it.

 LoneLictor wrote:


If they thought the bill were actually going to go through, they probably wouldn't be trying to destroy the US government with it.

How are they trying to destroy the US government?

They want to spend all the money on overseas wars but don't give a gak about the people here at home. They have shot down so many bills to help people here and spent so much on war and will continue to.

 Vash108 wrote:
They want to spend all the money on overseas wars but don't give a gak about the people here at home. They have shot down so many bills to help people here and spent so much on war and will continue to.

Republicans... evil... got it.

 whembly wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
They want to spend all the money on overseas wars but don't give a gak about the people here at home. They have shot down so many bills to help people here and spent so much on war and will continue to.

Republicans... evil... got it.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/y54hug/priority-fail

 whembly wrote:

Must be a tactic to get the Senate to the negotiating table.

I highly doubt it.

I would guess it's an attempt to keep GOP members in House seats while bolstering certain Senatorial campaigns during the Midterms.

Who hires the most individuals? Small Businesses? I could be wrong. SMALL BUSINESSES ARE EVIL!!!!

 whembly wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:


If they thought the bill were actually going to go through, they probably wouldn't be trying to destroy the US government with it.

How are they trying to destroy the US government?

Well, spending $287 billion that we don't have is not a recipe for a stable, functioning, long-lasting government.

They wouldn't actually spend it. They just want to look like they would.

 LoneLictor wrote:
Well, spending $287 billion that we don't have is not a recipe for a stable, functioning, long-lasting government.

They wouldn't actually spend it. They just want to look like they would.

It requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance to support Democrats while not supporting spending money we don't have.

 Seaward wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Well, spending $287 billion that we don't have is not a recipe for a stable, functioning, long-lasting government.

They wouldn't actually spend it. They just want to look like they would.

It requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance to support Democrats while not supporting spending money we don't have.

It also takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance to be "anti-deficit" while passing bills to increase the deficit by $287 billion.

 Seaward wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Well, spending $287 billion that we don't have is not a recipe for a stable, functioning, long-lasting government.

They wouldn't actually spend it. They just want to look like they would.

It requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance to support Democrats while not supporting spending money we don't have.

Well, its a good thing I commented, "I SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO" so that you could come up with that snappy comeback.

Ohh wait...

I didn't comment that.

You used up your snappy comeback for nothing.

Let's not pretend like there is a safe, responsible way to balance the budget. The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.


Or go back to a natural, responsible 'war for profit' economic model. Screw Nation Building... systemic looting is the way to go.

The deficit doesn't actually matter.

Well it does, but it doesn't matter because it does. Allow me to explain.

External Reasons.

1. The US debt is so huge the nation is bankrupt, this is the case for most of the G8 noatiins especially the US, UK and Japan.

2. If any of the G8 economies collapses they all collapse.
Especially the US economy.

3. So nobody wants to call in the debt, except perhaps China.

4. China cant afford to call in the debt, first its the wrong time to try and destabilise the west, they are not ready.
Also if the G8 countries default and settle then when all is said and done they have lost their position as creditor.

Internal Reasons.

1. While it makes for good spin its is unrealistic and grossly unfair to label the financial state if the US on either main party. both Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the US finaincial system. The only people able to make headway with the issue is a third party option.

2. It could be argued that even if either main party tried to do something about it they couldnt. Wall St is very powerful after all. There have been only token remedies to the 2008 collapse and most of those responsible have never been brought to task and are engaging in business as usual.

3. Any saving a party can make will not even cover the interest repayments.

4. As the economy is therefore artificially bouyant, why not have what the nation needs?

Just a politics stunt. Just like when the Senate dems passed a bill giving veterans money earlier in the year and republicans in the House shot it down because it was unfunded.

Dems went on the warpath saying republicans hated vets and all that. Now when the Senate shuts this down, republicans can go on screaming about how dems hate small business.

 whembly wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
They want to spend all the money on overseas wars but don't give a gak about the people here at home. They have shot down so many bills to help people here and spent so much on war and will continue to.

Republicans... evil... got it.

That sounds about right, yeah. At least the republicans in office, anyway. Except Bob Dole and Chris Christie. Those guys are alright. The rest of em...you republicans would have been better off voting Big Bird into office.

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.

Hmm... I'm not seeing a downside...

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
Well, spending $287 billion that we don't have is not a recipe for a stable, functioning, long-lasting government.

They wouldn't actually spend it. They just want to look like they would.

It requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance to support Democrats while not supporting spending money we don't have.

It also takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance to be "anti-deficit" while passing bills to increase the deficit by $287 billion.

While I agree with you, to be fair the faulty theory that Republicans are operating under is that by cutting $287 billion in taxes, that money will be spent instead, meaning that the $287 billion cut will be partially offset by sales and/or income taxes from increased wages and consumerism, etc. They expect this to somehow drive further domestic economic growth, which will result in more jobs, etc. etc. etc. and in 5 years somehow that tax cut that put us in a deeper deficit will turn into increased government revenue...

yeah, its silly.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.

Hmm... I'm not seeing a downside...

But who's lawns would we play on?!

 Bromsy wrote:
Let's not pretend like there is a safe, responsible way to balance the budget. The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.


Or go back to a natural, responsible 'war for profit' economic model. Screw Nation Building... systemic looting is the way to go.

Nah... just a political stunt.

If they're were truly wanting to address this, they ought to do this:

I propose today a different approach. Let's do away with the concept of "comprehensive" spending bills. Let's break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own.

This plan would enable the House to target certain spending in order to force the executive to heel while funding the rest of the government. Oh and if the Senate doesn’t take up or pass the appropriations bills... that’s up to them. The House will have done its work.

Oh, who is this crazy TEA party firebrand who suggested such a rash course of action? A fellow named John Boehner.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.

Hmm... I'm not seeing a downside...

You should see my proposal to deal with the influx of child immigrants... can anyone say earn your citizenship through the medium of workhouses? #bringbackAmericanindustry am I doing this right?

 Bromsy wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.

Hmm... I'm not seeing a downside...

You should see my proposal to deal with the influx of child immigrants... can anyone say earn your citizenship through the medium of workhouses? #bringbackAmericanindustry am I doing this right?

it worked in the 1910's, it'll work now damnit!

 AduroT wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.

Hmm... I'm not seeing a downside...

But who's lawns would we play on?!

We'd leave Frazz alive as our token old person and give him all the lawns in exchange.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.

Hmm... I'm not seeing a downside...

But who's lawns would we play on?!

We'd leave Frazz alive as our token old person and give him all the lawns in exchange.

Oh, please. You fear the wiener legion and you know it. Otherwise you'd be running through the streets screaming, "Soylent Green is Frazzled!"

 whembly wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Let's not pretend like there is a safe, responsible way to balance the budget. The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.


Or go back to a natural, responsible 'war for profit' economic model. Screw Nation Building... systemic looting is the way to go.

Nah... just a political stunt.

If they're were truly wanting to address this, they ought to do this:

I propose today a different approach. Let's do away with the concept of "comprehensive" spending bills. Let's break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own.

This plan would enable the House to target certain spending in order to force the executive to heel while funding the rest of the government. Oh and if the Senate doesn’t take up or pass the appropriations bills... that’s up to them. The House will have done its work.

Oh, who is this crazy TEA party firebrand who suggested such a rash course of action? A fellow named John Boehner.

Great idea, if you never want to see a budget of any kind again...

 whembly wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Let's not pretend like there is a safe, responsible way to balance the budget. The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.


Or go back to a natural, responsible 'war for profit' economic model. Screw Nation Building... systemic looting is the way to go.

Nah... just a political stunt.

If they're were truly wanting to address this, they ought to do this:

I propose today a different approach. Let's do away with the concept of "comprehensive" spending bills. Let's break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own.

This plan would enable the House to target certain spending in order to force the executive to heel while funding the rest of the government. Oh and if the Senate doesn’t take up or pass the appropriations bills... that’s up to them. The House will have done its work.

Oh, who is this crazy TEA party firebrand who suggested such a rash course of action? A fellow named John Boehner.

I didn't think John Boehner could get any dumber than trying to blame Cantor losing his seat on Obama.

I was so very, very wrong.

 Breotan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real way to make something happen would be something along the line of grind up everyone over 70 and feed them to the poor.

Hmm... I'm not seeing a downside...

But who's lawns would we play on?!

We'd leave Frazz alive as our token old person and give him all the lawns in exchange.

Oh, please. You fear the wiener legion and you know it. Otherwise you'd be running through the streets screaming, "Soylent Green is Frazzled!"

One does not fear the wiener legion when you have an army of cats. And a 3ft moat around your house.

 whembly wrote:

This plan would enable the House to target certain spending in order to force the executive to heel while funding the rest of the government. Oh and if the Senate doesn’t take up or pass the appropriations bills... that’s up to them. The House will have done its work.

Any measure which makes it easier to selectively cut funding also makes it easier to selectively increase funding, and these funding measures would inevitably be combined into omnibus bills due to House or Senate actions. And, in all honesty, this proposal would just end up wasting a lot of Congress' time.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

This plan would enable the House to target certain spending in order to force the executive to heel while funding the rest of the government. Oh and if the Senate doesn’t take up or pass the appropriations bills... that’s up to them. The House will have done its work.

Any measure which makes it easier to selectively cut funding also makes it easier to selectively increase funding, and these funding measures would inevitably be combined into omnibus bills due to House or Senate actions. And, in all honesty, this proposal would just end up wasting a lot of Congress' time.

And the people that are pro-military and don't want any cuts will not vote for the SNAP bill, and the pro SNAP bill folks don't want to vote for the military spending bill.

So neither bill gets passed because neither group wants to be weak in front of the other group.

Then we have a lot of "come on guys, if you pass the military bill we pinky swear that we will vote for the SNAP bill when it comes to a vote. You guys can trust us. *wink wink*" and "whatever. How about we pass the SNAP bill first and then after that gets passed we will vote for your military bill. We pinky swear! *wink wink*.

Which then turns into "okay, how about this. We combine the two bills and you get some of what you want and we get some of what we want, and then we vote for all these things at once to make sure that nobody can screw the other guy over, how about that" and then OH MY GOD WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE BILL LIKE WE ALREADY HAVE WHAT IS HAPPENING!!!!!!!!