It's a mix of cuts and bloat.

Any chance of it passing?

Edit: Here's a summary
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/...ummary.pdf

No.

It won't halve the deficit like he promised. It's actually increasing the deficit over 2011's.

Remember, Ron Paul is going to CUT a trillion, not add a trillion.

(02-13-2012 12:59 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  It won't halve the deficit like he promised. It's actually increasing the deficit over 2011's.

Remember, Ron Paul is going to CUT a trillion, not add a trillion.

Yeah, he will cut trillions of jobs too(k, thats an exaggeration) but you cut as many jobs as he would cut, you will destroy the economy.

(02-13-2012 01:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:59 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  It won't halve the deficit like he promised. It's actually increasing the deficit over 2011's.

Remember, Ron Paul is going to CUT a trillion, not add a trillion.

Yeah, he will cut trillions of jobs too(k, thats an exaggeration) but you cut as many jobs as he would cut, you will destroy the economy.

Yep. Govt. jobs for EVERYONE!!!

(02-13-2012 01:24 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:59 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  It won't halve the deficit like he promised. It's actually increasing the deficit over 2011's.

Remember, Ron Paul is going to CUT a trillion, not add a trillion.

Yeah, he will cut trillions of jobs too(k, thats an exaggeration) but you cut as many jobs as he would cut, you will destroy the economy.

Yep. Govt. jobs for EVERYONE!!!

I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground that balances short term needs with long term interests.

(02-13-2012 12:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's a mix of cuts and bloat.

Any chance of it passing?

Edit: Here's a summary
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/...ummary.pdf

Since the democratically led senate voted 97-0 against his last budget I am going to say no....

(02-13-2012 01:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:24 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:59 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  It won't halve the deficit like he promised. It's actually increasing the deficit over 2011's.

Remember, Ron Paul is going to CUT a trillion, not add a trillion.

Yeah, he will cut trillions of jobs too(k, thats an exaggeration) but you cut as many jobs as he would cut, you will destroy the economy.

Yep. Govt. jobs for EVERYONE!!!

I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground that balances short term needs with long term interests.

No according to these nuts. Just eliminate the jobs! I am sure corps are licking their lips for this to happen. When you have hundereds of thousands(or more) people out of work, they can lower wages and still get the best workers!

(02-13-2012 01:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No according to these nuts. Just eliminate the jobs! I am sure corps are licking their lips for this to happen. When you have hundereds of thousands(or more) people out of work, they can lower wages and still get the best workers!

Lower wages means cheaper goods, cheaper goods means lower cost of living, lower cost of living means MORE people can live well for LESS, yadda yadda yadda you don't understand...

The key is to eliminate the inefficient jobs (govt. jobs) and replace them with more efficient jobs (private sector)... If the position is wasteful and not needed, then it won't be replaced by the private sector, and shouldn't have existed in the first place.

But, by all means, rack up more debt. That seems to be the road to prosperity.

(02-13-2012 01:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground that balances short term needs with long term interests.

Thats been an excuse forever used by politicians to give away the farm today while promising things will get better four to eight years down the line.

We are past the point where we can suffer these deficits.

(02-13-2012 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's a mix of cuts and bloat.

Any chance of it passing?

Edit: Here's a summary
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/...ummary.pdf

Since the democratically led senate voted 97-0 against his last budget I am going to say no....

Seriously?

They voted down a budget that was already replaced...oh...the humanity.

(02-13-2012 01:40 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No according to these nuts. Just eliminate the jobs! I am sure corps are licking their lips for this to happen. When you have hundereds of thousands(or more) people out of work, they can lower wages and still get the best workers!

Lower wages means cheaper goods, cheaper goods means lower cost of living, lower cost of living means MORE people can live well for LESS, yadda yadda yadda you don't understand...

The key is to eliminate the inefficient jobs (govt. jobs) and replace them with more efficient jobs (private sector)... If the position is wasteful and not needed, then it won't be replaced by the private sector, and shouldn't have existed in the first place.

But, by all means, rack up more debt. That seems to be the road to prosperity.

Are there any spending cuts that you don't support?

(02-13-2012 02:13 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:40 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No according to these nuts. Just eliminate the jobs! I am sure corps are licking their lips for this to happen. When you have hundereds of thousands(or more) people out of work, they can lower wages and still get the best workers!

Lower wages means cheaper goods, cheaper goods means lower cost of living, lower cost of living means MORE people can live well for LESS, yadda yadda yadda you don't understand...

The key is to eliminate the inefficient jobs (govt. jobs) and replace them with more efficient jobs (private sector)... If the position is wasteful and not needed, then it won't be replaced by the private sector, and shouldn't have existed in the first place.

But, by all means, rack up more debt. That seems to be the road to prosperity.

Are there any spending cuts that you don't support?

No.

(02-13-2012 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's a mix of cuts and bloat.

Any chance of it passing?

Edit: Here's a summary
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/...ummary.pdf

Since the democratically led senate voted 97-0 against his last budget I am going to say no....

Seriously?

They voted down a budget that was already replaced...oh...the humanity.

Replaced with what?

The senate has not passed a budget in more than almost years!

* The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
* Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt
* President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0.
* The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

We are funding on continuing resolutions *not* a budget.

(02-13-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's a mix of cuts and bloat.

Any chance of it passing?

Edit: Here's a summary
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/...ummary.pdf

Since the democratically led senate voted 97-0 against his last budget I am going to say no....

Seriously?

They voted down a budget that was already replaced...oh...the humanity.

Replaced with what?

The senate has not passed a budget in more than three years!

* The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
* Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt
* President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0.
* The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

We are funding on continuing resolutions *not* a budget.

Wait...you mean our elected leaders on both sides haven't done ANYTHING in the last three years....right now I'm showing you my SHOCKED face. Our government is as effective as a perforated rubber.

(02-13-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's a mix of cuts and bloat.

Any chance of it passing?

Edit: Here's a summary
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/...ummary.pdf

Since the democratically led senate voted 97-0 against his last budget I am going to say no....

Seriously?

They voted down a budget that was already replaced...oh...the humanity.

Replaced with what?

The senate has not passed a budget in more than almost years!

* The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
* Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt
* President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0.
* The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

We are funding on continuing resolutions *not* a budget.

Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/16334...ama-budget

It was simply politics by McConnell to answer the politics played by Democrats in bringing the the Ryan plan to a vote that was never going to pass.

(02-13-2012 02:13 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:40 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  No according to these nuts. Just eliminate the jobs! I am sure corps are licking their lips for this to happen. When you have hundereds of thousands(or more) people out of work, they can lower wages and still get the best workers!

Lower wages means cheaper goods, cheaper goods means lower cost of living, lower cost of living means MORE people can live well for LESS, yadda yadda yadda you don't understand...

The key is to eliminate the inefficient jobs (govt. jobs) and replace them with more efficient jobs (private sector)... If the position is wasteful and not needed, then it won't be replaced by the private sector, and shouldn't have existed in the first place.

But, by all means, rack up more debt. That seems to be the road to prosperity.

Are there any spending cuts that you don't support?

You're asking me that while Obama is proposing an INCREASE TO OUR DEBT AT A FASTER RATE THAN LAST YEAR?

At this point? No. Equal cuts across the board, to a level that balances the budget, then freeze that budget until the debt is gone. Seems pretty logical. If the fed keeps on printing $$ it'll actually be an increase in the federal budget, since they'll be one of the first to get these (soon to be) devalued dollars.

(02-13-2012 02:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

LOL

(02-13-2012 02:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's a mix of cuts and bloat.

Any chance of it passing?

Edit: Here's a summary
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/...ummary.pdf

Since the democratically led senate voted 97-0 against his last budget I am going to say no....

Seriously?

They voted down a budget that was already replaced...oh...the humanity.

Replaced with what?

The senate has not passed a budget in more than almost years!

* The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
* Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt
* President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0.
* The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

We are funding on continuing resolutions *not* a budget.

Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/16334...ama-budget

It was simply politics by McConnell to answer the politics played by Democrats in bringing the the Ryan plan to a vote that was never going to pass.

*NOT A PASSED BUDGET SINCE 2009*

GOP was not in a power position to stop them until 2011!

Spin it however you want but for two years a democratic house / senate / president did not get a budget passed.

People misunderstand their position in government. Government is not an employer that needs to be supported. It is a company providing services. Citizens are almost always either consumers or investors in this company, and rarely employees. Cutting inefficient jobs from this company and getting rid of bloated middle managers with stupid salaries would benefit both investors and consumers. We can debate where the efficiencies should go... To investors or consumers or both in some fashion, but they are just a business, and need to be much more efficient

I don't understand why we can't agree on this general premise. Democrats have a chance to demonstrate what they think corporations should look like... With reasonably paid management, low costs and high customer satisfaction