There will be no need for congress!

[madmax]

Originally Posted by dumbass

The question was and I quote "Originally Posted by dumbass Exactly!! Please name the spending cuts along with the associated dollar amount of those cuts that that offset the tax increases achieved during the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations.

To which you responded:



Your reference is from 2011. The "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations took place in December 2012 and a day or two into January 2013. It's not nefarious, it's irrelevant, you're just making noise.

No, DUMBASS, it's from December 11, 2012. WTF is the matter with you? You make less and less sense every day. Here is the dateline "cut and pasted" from the article: President Obama's Record and Proposals for Cutting Spending

Jason Furman and Heather Higginbottom
December 11, 2012
03:20 PM EST

Originally Posted by dumbass

Whatever that's supposed to mean?????

Perhaps YOU need the Ridalin. Really pretty basic: don't spend and you don't have to worry about the bill. Capice, dumbass?

Originally Posted by dumbass

From Teddy Roosevelt, to Simpson-Bowles, to 1998 tax levels, to a "socialist plot, to conspiracy nuts, to DeSouza all in one paragraph. Just a little disjointed wouldn't you say. Sounds like your ADD is out of control again. Did you take your Ritalin today.

You're the one who went irrelevant about "hero". No, not disjointed to someone with any sense of logic. Simpson-Bowles was an exhaustive study of what could be done....1998 tax levels are only a few percent higher for the upper 1% than they are now... and your conspiracy theory mindset was on display for your "hero" DeSouza and runs unabated today.

If not ADD, what is your excuse for your disorder?

[FormerRepub]

Originally Posted by diamondlady

I think what Dumbass was asking is what spending cuts were made?

First, we need to define "cut" in terms of real or nominal spending.

If inflation causes prices to go up 10% and poplulation increases 10% and we increase spending 15%, is that a cut or not?

In an inflation adjusted, per capta basis, yes, it is a cut.

In nominal dollars, it is a spending increase.

People like dumbass like to focus on nominal dollars, ignoring things like inflation and population increases and then say we're not making any spending cuts, just increasing spending at a slower rate.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

No, DUMBASS, it's from December 11, 2012. WTF is the matter with you? You make less and less sense every day. Here is the dateline "cut and pasted" from the article: President Obama's Record and Proposals for Cutting Spending

Jason Furman and Heather Higginbottom
December 11, 2012
03:20 PM EST

There's nothing really wrong with me. You're correct but only to the extent that December 11, 2012 was possibly the date the information was posted to the Blog.

With that being said, shit for brains, you didn't even bother to read content of the stuff that you copy and past. The very first paragraph of your reference says: "As part of his balanced approach to deficit reduction, the President has signed $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts into law through the Budget Control Act, and his budget calls for more than $340 billion in entitlement savings from Medicare and Medicaid, and $250 billion from other mandatory programs."

I added the bold emphasis above. The Budget Control Act was signed into law on August 2, 2011. (Hmmm, the complete title of the act is"The Budget Control Act of 2011" ) Interestingly, that was the act that established the Super Committee that ultimately led to the "Fiscal Cliff" and the "automatic budget sequestration" fiascoes. Do you remember any of that? Google it and try to reading before you run your mouth like an idiot.

The remainder of your rant is irrelevant. Have a nice day.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by diamondlady

I think what Dumbass was asking is what spending cuts were made?

Hey Girl, it's good to see that you're still with us.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by dumbass

There's nothing really wrong with me. You're correct but only to the extent that December 11, 2012 was possibly the date the information was posted to the Blog.

With that being said, shit for brains, you didn't even bother to read content of the stuff that you copy and past.

Wow... you got the grumpy old man bit down pat, huh?
Yeah, I read it, but it seems you have comprehension problems to add to your list of issues. You asked about "cuts" - I gave a link that provided an answer. The Title of the article is "Obama's Record and Proposals for Cutting Spending", pretty clear. The Budget Control Act is the $1 trillion of "Record" and the proposed savings from entitlements is another $590 billion that compromises the "Proposals" part. So you have $590 billion in new spending reductions to "entitlements", which Boehner wanted it to come from.
That's pretty fucking clear unless you have "shit for brains". But really, you could have done your own homework on this instead of asking "where are the cuts?" Most people who really pay attention realize what is going on and don't have to ask such questions. You get an answer and go apeshit

Originally Posted by dumbass

Do you remember any of that? Google it and try to reading before you run your mouth like an idiot.

"try to reading..." you're so worked up you can't manage the English language! LOL

Well, dumbass, it's simple: you asked where are the cuts? You got a link with $590 billion. But I'm the "idiot" - LOL

Spending is the function of Congress. The administration asked for spending cuts s***estions from Congress. As Reid said: "If the Republicans want additional spending cuts in that down payment, the onus is on them to put them on the table."
The Republicans did not do that.

The remainder of your rant is irrelevant. Have a nice day.[/quote]

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

[
After taking the guns; then it will be books, Jews, anti-abortionists, tax protesters, and maybe Rocket Scientists someday (we can hope).

LMFAO!!! Then they'll be taking sweets off children and snatching food out of baby's mouths no doubt!

[DonH]

Senator Barrack Obama....2006

" The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

[Sapphire]

Originally Posted by DonH

Senator Barrack Obama....2006

" The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

You're Absolutely Right!

[madmax]

Originally Posted by DonH

Senator Barrack Obama....2006

" The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Senator Obama was correct. Perhaps a little history will help some who think this is a new problem.

Historical significance

US government indebtedness has been the norm in the financial history of the nation. The carriage of debt in Western Europe and North America by governments has been normal for the past 200 years, so the US situation is not unique.
The US has only been "without a debt or deficit" for under 1% of its legal existence since the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly report on the amount of the debt ($75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791).
Every President since Harry Truman has added to the national debt expressed in absolute dollars. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962, including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W. Bush and three times (to August 2011) under Barack Obama.

But it comes down to revenue and spending, not deciding whether or not we pay our bills.

[madmax]

This is hilarious!
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...d-country.html