This is why the Democrats cannot - will not - "negotiate"

[nehalem256]

Total federal expenditures under the Ryan plan, FY2014: $3.53 trillion.
Total projected expenditures per CBO, FY2014: $3.62 trillion.

Total difference: 2.5%.

So again, I'm interested to hear about how the poor Republicans have been forced into this by Democrats making them keep funding at "bailout levels"... which apparently are the Paul Ryan plan +2.5%.

Either our good friend Paul Ryan is a bailout fanatic, forcing his views on the poor Republican House conference, or maybe the shtick about forcing funding at 'bailout levels' is hysterical nonsense.

Please show me EVIDENCE that the GOP want to cut defense spending. Please, I am all ears. Please show me where the GOP have had ANY history of fiscal responsibility after Nixon. Please, show me. I will show you 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush Jr of unmitigated spending.

Or maybe Republicans have a historical record of talking about less spending while instead spending more?

EDIT: Or maybe whacking 100s of billions of dollars off the budget at once is not the sanest fiscal policy?

 

[fskimospy]

Too bad the discharge petition has no GOP votes, including those who said they would favor passing a "clean" CR. It won't clear fillibuster in Senate, and it won't get majority in the House. And even now, it would take 7 days to pass in the Senate even if the fillibuster could be overcome, not leaving any time for the House to pass it before debt ceiling was reached.

I love the smell of "no compromise" in the morning.

They won't yet, but like I said before give it time. Some people are too ignorant to understand the consequences of their ideology. If we do breach the debt ceiling I imagine this has a good chance of being part of the mad scramble to undo the damage.

Like I told you last night I hope it doesn't come to it but if it does, you'll learn.

 

[CountZero]

The real reason that Democrats cannot negotiate is because they have zero leverage. Republicans want a smaller government and get it with the shut/slimdown.

You are right, they can get a smaller government in much the same way you can get a smaller car by driving it into a wall.

 

[thraashman]

You are right, they can get a smaller government in much the same way you can get a smaller car by driving it into a wall.

Good analogy. Any way we can send that message directly to the king of the fucktards, Ted Cruz?

 

[monovillage]

We can talk to the North Koreans during a war, we can talk to the Vietcong during a war, but Obama won't talk to the elected representatives of half the country.

 

[glenn1]

They won't yet, but like I said before give it time. Some people are too ignorant to understand the consequences of their ideology. If we do breach the debt ceiling I imagine this has a good chance of being part of the mad scramble to undo the damage.

Like I told you last night I hope it doesn't come to it but if it does, you'll learn.

Yes, give it some time, as if time is your ally right now. I'm sure Democrats will cycle through a few more of their magic bullet ideas to force their way on this matter without needing to deal with Republicans. Maybe the "trillion dollar coin" will get some play again.

I await my chance to learn. Meanwhile, we're another day closer. Tick tock.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, give it some time, as if time is your ally right now. I'm sure Democrats will cycle through a few more of their magic bullet ideas to force their way on this matter without needing to deal with Republicans. Maybe the "trillion dollar coin" will get some play again.

I await my chance to learn. Meanwhile, we're another day closer. Tick tock.

I'm sure you do! I lament the fact that you need something this obvious to be taught to you.

 

[glenn1]

You are right, they can get a smaller government in much the same way you can get a smaller car by driving it into a wall.

Democrats thought that way during the sequester as well. "No way the Republicans will allow big cuts to defense." Well, they did and they will again. This ain't your father's GOP any more, content to allow spending to go up 4% a year indefinitely. If the choice is cutting discretionary spending 33% or allowing the spending to continue at current levels, they'll let the 33% cut happen. Call it the super sequester.

 

[fskimospy]

Democrats thought that way during the sequester as well. "No way the Republicans will allow big cuts to defense." Well, they did and they will again. This ain't your father's GOP any more, content to allow spending to go up 4% a year indefinitely. If the choice is cutting discretionary spending 33% or allowing the spending to continue at current levels, they'll let the 33% cut happen. Call it the super sequester.

Want to place any bets on that and put your money where your mouth is?

 

[glenn1]

I'm sure you do! I lament the fact that you need something this obvious to be taught to you.

What's obvious? The fact that you're terrified that the opposition is finally and truthfully committed to cutting spending this time?

Again, debt ceiling or not or current debt service can and will be maintained. This is strictly about how much gets cut from other spending at this point. If it needs to be via blunt instrument 33% cuts, then so be it.

 

[glenn1]

Want to place any bets on that and put your money where your mouth is?

Yeah, I'll see your "no negotiations" bet and raise you a 33% discretionary spending cut.

 

[dank69]

What's obvious? The fact that you're terrified that the opposition is finally and truthfully committed to cutting spending this time?

Again, debt ceiling or not or current debt service can and will be maintained. This is strictly about how much gets cut from other spending at this point. If it needs to be via blunt instrument 33% cuts, then so be it.

They aren't committed to cutting spending. Where did you get that insane idea? They just want to block Obamacare.

 

[werepossum]

Total federal expenditures under the Ryan plan, FY2014: $3.53 trillion.
Total projected expenditures per CBO, FY2014: $3.62 trillion.

Total difference: 2.5%.

So again, I'm interested to hear about how the poor Republicans have been forced into this by Democrats making them keep funding at "bailout levels"... which apparently are the Paul Ryan plan +2.5%.

Either our good friend Paul Ryan is a bailout fanatic, forcing his views on the poor Republican House conference, or maybe the shtick about forcing funding at 'bailout levels' is hysterical nonsense.

We're roughly 15% above 2008 spending. That does not mean that Republicans think they can get back to 2008 levels, or even that they want to do so.

Why are you using FY2012 as opposed to FY2013, which is the most recent completed fiscal year? The deficit for FY2013 was approximately $750 billion. (according to the most recent estimate I can find)

It's worth pointing out that werepossum either likes to use out of date data for no reason I can discern, was too dumb to realize he was using out of date data, or is a fundamentally dishonest person.

See the bolded. The site I referenced does not have FY2013 numbers because FY2013 numbers are not yet available, only estimates. However, even a deficit of $750 building should make clear my point that your "budget" numbers were, in fact, a lie. Amusing to see that you're sticking with your "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. I suppose if there is no possibility of not being considered a liar, the best alternative may well be trying to claim that everyone does it. Even more amusing that you make this claim in the same post where you advance yet another fundamental lie, that my numbers are "out of date" because we have estimates of FY2013.

Regardless, I'll give you the last word as once again, I see no point in arguing with fundamentally dishonest people. Have a nice life.

 

[fskimospy]

What's obvious? The fact that you're terrified that the opposition is finally and truthfully committed to cutting spending this time?

Again, debt ceiling or not or current debt service can and will be maintained. This is strictly about how much gets cut from other spending at this point. If it needs to be via blunt instrument 33% cuts, then so be it.

Well if they are so finally and truthfully committed to cutting spending then you should have no problem putting down some money on it. I mean if you're so certain you will not only get the benefits of your preferred policies, but also some of my money in your pocket. You win double!

 

[glenn1]

Well if they are so finally and truthfully committed to cutting spending then you should have no problem putting down some money on it. I mean if you're so certain you will not only get the benefits of your preferred policies, but also some of my money in your pocket. You win double!

Why don't you donate to charities instead to help all those hurt by the sequester?

 

[fskimospy]

We're roughly 15% above 2008 spending. That does not mean that Republicans think they can get back to 2008 levels, or even that they want to do so.

If they don't want to do so, then the Democrats aren't forcing them to do anything. You can't even keep your own arguments straight.

See the bolded. The site I referenced does not have FY2013 numbers because FY2013 numbers are not yet available, only estimates. However, even a deficit of $750 building should make clear my point that your "budget" numbers were, in fact, a lie.

This level of stupidity is baffling. My budget numbers were relating Paul Ryan's budget for FY2014 to the enacted continuing resolution for FY2014. Linking what the federal deficit was for a period from two years ago to one year ago is not only irrelevant, but bafflingly so. The fact that you think that quoting year old unrelated numbers makes my statement about the current CR a 'lie' is hilarious.

Amusing to see that you're sticking with your "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. I suppose if there is no possibility of not being considered a liar, the best alternative may well be trying to claim that everyone does it. Even more amusing that you make this claim in the same post where you advance yet another fundamental lie, that my numbers are "out of date" because we have estimates of FY2013.

I'm not claiming that everyone is a liar, I'm claiming that you are a liar.

You have continually shown yourself to be incapable of arguing a point with me honestly. I imagine some of this comes from simply not understanding what you're arguing about, but another part of it clearly comes from the fact that you get angry when I call you out for saying dumb or wrong things. You're in over your head so you try and lie your way out of it.

Regardless, I'll give you the last word as once again, I see no point in arguing with fundamentally dishonest people. Have a nice life.

Guy, I don't care if the Sage of Chattanooga deigns to argue with me or not. When you say something dumb or dishonest in the future I will call you out on it. If you don't feel like answering that's totally on you.

 

[fskimospy]

Why don't you donate to charities instead to help all those hurt by the sequester?

Someone's not so certain all of a sudden. Gee, shocker.

It's almost like you're just venting your emotions about what you wish would happen.

 

[glenn1]

Someone's not so certain all of a sudden. Gee, shocker.

It's almost like you're just venting your emotions about what you wish would happen.

Yeah baby, shake that e-peen. "You won't make an internet bet. Ha ha."

I'm sure if you emailed your bet proposal to John Boehner that would be what pushed him over the edge to accept a clean CR.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah baby, shake that e-peen. "You won't make an internet bet. Ha ha."

I'm sure if you emailed your bet proposal to John Boehner that would be what pushed him over the edge to accept a clean CR.

Nah, I'm just pointing out that all you're doing here is emotionally ranting. You don't even believe your own crap.

 

[Jhhnn]

Teahadists won't be happy until they shut down the govt, default on debt maintenance. If not now, then at any opportunity they can find in the future. It's inevitable.

Boehner can prevent it, simply by bringing appropriate measures to a vote.

Not that I like it, but it's time to just let 'em do it, then make 'em wear it to the 2014 election & beyond. It won't look good on anyone, and the voting public is already well aware of just how trumped up this "crisis" really is and who's responsible.

If they want an albatross hung around their necks, put it on 'em.

 

[marvdmartian]

The Dems have promised the world: "free" healthcare (what people thought Obamacare would be), welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing.....you name it, they'll promise it and deliver......and then use it as a threat, "If you don't vote for us, you'll have this taken away from you!!" They've labeled it "Social Welfare" (aka, "Take care of the disadvantaged"), but all they've accomplished is to take a class of people, and place them into socio-economic slavery, where now, after generations have taken advantage of the government teat, and lost any longing for anything else, they can no longer survive without it. "Social Welfare" has replaced whips and chains with checks and debit cards, and bought the votes they need, to stay in power.

The Repubs, on the other hand, continue to preach the "less is more" doctrine, and gain support by cutting taxes. The only problem is, they've given concession after concession, and allowed spending to increase while money coming in has decreased, that they have actually helped the Dems spend this country into oblivion.

BOTH parties, meanwhile, have gone on a generational spending spree, and robbed both Social Security and Medicare accounts, bleeding them dry, so they're no longer self-sustaining, as they were meant to be. Which has now added to the debt burden, as they continue to make promises they can't keep, believing that we can't be out of money, because we still have checks in the checkbook!!

And BOTH are wrong. I'm no economics whiz-kid, but I know that the ONLY way this country is going to get out of this downward spiral we're in, is to DECREASE SPENDING AND INCREASE TAXES!!

But woe unto the first politician who preaches the new gospel of economics, as every American will rise up, and shout to the heavens, "HELL NO!! I DESERVE THAT ENTITLEMENT, AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME!!!" The welfare recipients that need their monthly check to survive will stand shoulder to shoulder with the retirees that depend on Social Security to survive (NEITHER of which was designed to be for long-term survival, but, instead, for short-term assistance), and will tear down the fool who would dare speak the blasphemy of common fiscal sense!!

And so we find ourselves turning into a giant version of what we've already seen happening in Europe. Afraid to admit the truth, we'll continue borrowing until US Treasury bonds are considered JUNK status, and no one will allow us to borrow any more.

And some day, someone will read of the giant colossus, the United States of America, which tumbled down into financial oblivion.

 

[ivwshane]

When your first scentence starts out with a lie then it's probably best to ignore the rest.

Try again, this time try not using talking points.

The Dems have promised the world: "free" healthcare (what people thought Obamacare would be), welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing.....you name it, they'll promise it and deliver......and then use it as a threat, "If you don't vote for us, you'll have this taken away from you!!" They've labeled it "Social Welfare" (aka, "Take care of the disadvantaged"), but all they've accomplished is to take a class of people, and place them into socio-economic slavery, where now, after generations have taken advantage of the government teat, and lost any longing for anything else, they can no longer survive without it. "Social Welfare" has replaced whips and chains with checks and debit cards, and bought the votes they need, to stay in power.

The Repubs, on the other hand, continue to preach the "less is more" doctrine, and gain support by cutting taxes. The only problem is, they've given concession after concession, and allowed spending to increase while money coming in has decreased, that they have actually helped the Dems spend this country into oblivion.

BOTH parties, meanwhile, have gone on a generational spending spree, and robbed both Social Security and Medicare accounts, bleeding them dry, so they're no longer self-sustaining, as they were meant to be. Which has now added to the debt burden, as they continue to make promises they can't keep, believing that we can't be out of money, because we still have checks in the checkbook!!

And BOTH are wrong. I'm no economics whiz-kid, but I know that the ONLY way this country is going to get out of this downward spiral we're in, is to DECREASE SPENDING AND INCREASE TAXES!!

But woe unto the first politician who preaches the new gospel of economics, as every American will rise up, and shout to the heavens, "HELL NO!! I DESERVE THAT ENTITLEMENT, AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME!!!" The welfare recipients that need their monthly check to survive will stand shoulder to shoulder with the retirees that depend on Social Security to survive (NEITHER of which was designed to be for long-term survival, but, instead, for short-term assistance), and will tear down the fool who would dare speak the blasphemy of common fiscal sense!!

And so we find ourselves turning into a giant version of what we've already seen happening in Europe. Afraid to admit the truth, we'll continue borrowing until US Treasury bonds are considered JUNK status, and no one will allow us to borrow any more.

And some day, someone will read of the giant colossus, the United States of America, which tumbled down into financial oblivion.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

When your first scentence starts out with a lie then it's probably best to ignore the rest.

Try again, this time try not using talking points.

Your missing out on the funny part in the middle where he says both parties are wrong and we need to decrease spending and increase taxes but woe to anyone who suggests it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your missing out on the funny part in the middle where he says both parties are wrong and we need to decrease spending and increase taxes but woe to anyone who suggests it.

Sad to say, we really do need to increase taxes, particularly at the tippy-top, for a lot of reasons.

Or, even a blind squirrel finds a few acorns.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Sad to say, we really do need to increase taxes, particularly at the tippy-top, for a lot of reasons.

Or, even a blind squirrel finds a few acorns.

Oh he's right on that part, of course so was Obama when he was saying it while getting elected to his 2nd term.