Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands January 4th, 2013 12:00am

Some in Congress are unwilling to increase the debt ceiling without spending cuts at least equal to the size of that increase. Is that position reckless or responsible?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

tchance2 32218
01/11/13 10:01 pm

Ok so basically you listen to Romney talk and people like him. I agree, and I voted for Romney based on this. But how you said it initially sounded like you wanted to cut spending in one area to spend more in others. I think if you woulda said cut spending to pay off debt I would have fully agreed.

EnginE3r Texas
01/11/13 7:51 am

@tchance2 Yes we do need to cut spending now and use most of it to pay down the national debt. Reducing the size of government would reduce the cost of government so it can run on less money. Taxes are to be lowered next to increase the private sector's spending, therefore more money is taxed.

tchance2 32218
01/10/13 5:46 pm

I agree that it's responsible but it's not the same as cutting spending in one area so that you can increase spending in another. That is not responsible spending when you're $16.4T in debt. Cut spending period!

dbalent
01/10/13 2:19 pm

I suppose you subscribe to the Nancy Pelosi idea that unemployment payments are the best way to stimulate the economy. Now that is truly an idea to hold as a standard!

dbalent
01/10/13 2:15 pm

Oh forgot the crony capitalism of green energy, the union bail out of GM, unprecedented expansion of government employment AND a completely made up unemployment number. 7.7% is only because they deemed the other 8% as no longer looking.

dbalent
01/10/13 2:11 pm

Obama got 65M votes to Romney's 60M. Obama bought at least 10M votes through government hand outs (unemployment extended to 99 weeks, delayed foreclosures, home refi's, food stamp roles alone grew by 12M). If the handouts had stopped Republican ideas would have swept the election.

Think Lovin Life
01/10/13 1:58 pm

Adalla ... hang on, Bozo was a legitimate and hard working clown! Please don't insult Bozo!

Think Lovin Life
01/10/13 1:57 pm

MrO's spending "cuts" include $300 billion he saved by ending World War I, World War II and the Korean War.

The man simply doesn't have the ability to honestly negotiate ANY real cuts. He will only take credit for phantom "cuts" for spending we never intended. MrO is dishonest.

Think Lovin Life
01/10/13 1:50 pm

Josh ... this is an alien concept to the spend like there's no tomorrow Democrats.

The concept of personal and national responsibility is quite simply. Progressives just don't want to hear it.

Responsible
01/10/13 1:17 pm

Rand ... You are welcome to donate your money to that mother of three. Oh ... what's that? You only want to donate OTHER PEOPLE'S money?

That is the Democrat way ... very generous with everyone else's money, but following crazy uncle Biden's charitable contribution policy!!! Hypocrites!

Responsible
01/10/13 1:14 pm

Rand ... you really don't try to scratch below the surface of the Democrat talking points, do you? The billions for oil companies are just tax incentives to let them keep a small portion of their own money. What about the obscene give-always to MrO's cronies like Solyndra. That's our money!

Responsible
01/10/13 1:11 pm

Oops ... this was attached to the wrong thread

Responsible
01/10/13 1:10 pm

Rand ... and if you want your money to go to the divorced mother if three, then knock yourself out with that donation. Nobody is stopping. Oh, wait ... you only want to be generous with other people's money? Yep, that's the Democrat way ... spend freely when it's not your money.

Responsible
01/10/13 1:07 pm

Mr Romney and Ho's company paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. And the companies that they saved, are also paying taxes.

While the companies MrO has invested OUR money into have been corrupt and/or now bankrupt.

RandFan Headed to IPhone rehab
01/10/13 1:06 pm

I'd rather money go to a divorced mother of 3 than an oil company with billions in profit.

Responsible
01/10/13 1:05 pm

Rand ... you are kidding, right? Mr Romney and his company turned many failing companies around. They couldn't save them all, but their success rate was 80%. Remind us again, what has MrO EVER done that provided value to the country and its economy.

RandFan Headed to IPhone rehab
01/10/13 1:04 pm

You rail against the jobless as if its their fault. Where are they supposed to get a job when guys like the Koch brothers and Mitt Romney have sent as much as they could over to China. Where Walmart shows its employees how to get on foodstamps and Medicaid.

RandFan Headed to IPhone rehab
01/10/13 1:03 pm

Nar202. So this country wasn't founded upon he principal of all men being equal? I must have missed something in my years of study in political science and American history.

RandFan Headed to IPhone rehab
01/10/13 12:54 pm

"Trickle down"? Are you actually that retarded?! If this was a valid economic theory, why hasn't it worked? It's been in place since the 1980's. if it was correct, we'd have a booming economy.

How is giving billionaires more money good for anyone other than the billionaires?

RandFan Headed to IPhone rehab
01/10/13 12:49 pm

Nar202. What exactly did Mitt Romney do for his money? What actual work was performed? What new idea did he have? Other than get rich by putting Americans out of work, and even that wasn't his. He bet on certain companies to "win" and he collected they money, while others did actual work.

Nar2D2
01/10/13 12:37 pm

Upon! It makes me so angry!

Nar2D2
01/10/13 12:37 pm

Down economics. And why do all democrats think that all rich people are evil?? Oh no! That man worked for his money! That's totally not what America is all about!! Let's take every penny from him!! I can't people like you get to vote in a country, when you don't even agree with what it was founded

Nar2D2
01/10/13 12:35 pm

Are you kidding me randfan?? Do you realize how much they already pay slash how that will tank out economy?? You can't make money on a product without having someone buy it, and our economy works the same way. You have to have someone spending for the economy to be stimulated. It's called trickle

EnginE3r Texas
01/10/13 9:46 am

No, I'm serious. Quite simply, you can't use something if you don't have it so you gotta get it from somewhere if you wanna use it.

tchance2 32218
01/10/13 8:42 am

Is this guy for real or are you just joking?

EnginE3r Texas
01/10/13 8:10 am

It's responsible, just like it I myself were on a tight budget and I wanted to increase spending in one area then I would need to cut spending in other areas of my budget. That is the easiest way but the best way is to have an increase in income that will last.

Reply
dbalent
01/08/13 8:38 am

Businesses move off shore to avoid having their company essentially taken over by the government or unions. They go where they are welcome and can prosper. Would you buy an iPhone if it cost $1500 due to taxes and union wages?

Reply
dbalent
01/08/13 8:31 am

The debt is only part of issue. The US faces $87 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. This is a CBO number not some right wing propaganda. Every government aid recipient and holder of a government backed security is at risk. Where will the money come from?

Reply
dbalent
01/08/13 8:26 am

Timothy McVeigh killed children with fertilizer and diesel fuel. African nations have committed genocide with Machetes. The guns are not the problem. The problem is that people have no higher aspirations than to be famous for committing such acts.

ScrewU Gone
01/08/13 7:43 am

I take it when your kids vote for chocolate cake for dinner you have to give it to them?

Reply
ScrewU Gone
01/08/13 7:41 am

You don't seem to realize how large the problem is. We could cut 100% of discretionary spending... ALL of it... every federal agency, the entire military and every social program and we would STILL have to borrow money to pay interest on the national debt and obligations like fed retirements etc

Reply
ScrewU Gone
01/08/13 7:36 am

The difference between us and Greece is that we already have a HIGHER per person rate of govt debt than they do.

Greece plans to be around a few thousand more years. We aren't even going to make it to 250.

ScrewU Gone
01/08/13 7:33 am

That's how the constitution was written. Sadly we chucked those wise rules long ago.

Reply
dbalent
01/08/13 7:32 am

As a tax paying Republican I will tell you where to cut. No recipient of government aid should receive aid with a total worth in excess of 2000 times the state minimum wage. Pick any form of aid you qualify for but cap the maximum total.

ScrewU Gone
01/08/13 7:32 am

So every cop, Avery secret service agent, every member of our military is a psycho?

Try again bozo.

Reply
ScrewU Gone
01/08/13 7:29 am

Amen brother.

And these people voted.

Reply
dbalent
01/08/13 7:20 am

Obama's idea of a spending cut is that he had planned to run $1.5 Trillion dollar annual deficit but held it to only $1Trillion. It is not about keeping the rich happy. It is about what is sustainable. When it all comes crashing down entitlements will be cut first.

Reply
Damien
01/07/13 11:29 pm

The more comments I read, the more I feel I'm surrounded by complete imbeciles...

Reply
mstt
01/07/13 8:51 pm

The healthcare problem is one of too much spending! Interesting how it all comes around.

Reply
vbranger Hillary for Prison
01/07/13 7:02 pm

Vote Obama-" I won't have to pay my mortgage or pay for gas for my car and I can use my Obama phone and his Vice President Sara Palin can help him with the issues in the U.S." I believe these were quotes from his supporters. No wonder why America is going down the path to a 3rd world standard.

Reply
vbranger Hillary for Prison
01/07/13 6:56 pm

So he admits his new healthcare is the problem that will wreck America

Reply
RandFan Headed to IPhone rehab
01/07/13 6:19 am

One cities gun laws won't help if the rest if the nation is awash with the tools of mass murder.

Why is it that the most gun crazy are also the most religious? And why is it that the most religious also have the lowest IQ?

RandFan Headed to IPhone rehab
01/07/13 6:16 am

Yeah. Because we need to give even more power to the billionaires who didn't earn a dime of "their" money.

Billionaires are professional gamblers that won big, and should be taxed accordingly.

50% MINIMUM!

ozzy
01/07/13 5:16 am

Yeah. It's called obamacare lol

Reply
fotoguy Florida
01/06/13 10:41 pm

It truly is amazing how little democrats know about economics, yet they think they know so much.

Reply
mstt
01/06/13 9:06 pm

You want to know how? Listen to Simpson-Bowles! Listen to Paul Light of NYU!

Reply
mstt
01/06/13 9:02 pm

Tax the 1% at 100% - that is still only a drop in the bucket. The only pockets deep enough to have an effect on the debt are the federal government's by cutting spending much more.

Reply