Remember those spending cuts that the government fought to the point of default over?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Max E., Apr 26, 2012.

  1. Max E.

    Max E.

    Government is already breaking the pact, and the Senate republicans didnt even stop it. The republicans who switched sides to stop this bill, along with every single democrat in the senate needs to go. It is hopeless trying cut spending, we may as well just concede the fact that we are fucked.

    They managed to push the spending cuts off from starting for a couple years, and they are doing spending cuts over ten years, and they still can not honor the goddamn deal. These guys are like crackheads, addicted to spending our money.

    This is the reason why I am actually happy that republicans took a hard line stance on tax increases, we all know what would have happened if Republicans had agreed to a bunch of tax increases, probably none of the spending cuts would have ever taken place.

    The Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Session's (R-AL) valiant attempt to stop Congress from spending $34 billion above the Budget Control Act limits was defeated yesterday by a vote of 62-37.

    The fact that Sen. Sessions's attempt to slow Washington's runaway spending could not even garner the full support of Republicans paints an ominous sign for citizens worried about America's nearly $16 trillion debt.

    In a press release issued after the defeat of his point of order, Sen. Sessions said:

    In a sad and revealing vote, 62 Senators voted to violate the very modest spending cuts agreed to as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. Thus, the debt deal—sold as a dollar for dollar increase-to-cut ratio—has been broken.This is not a debate about the merits of the postal bill. It’s a debate about paying for it. If this bill is important, then why can’t the Senate find $34 billion in offsets over ten years? That’s only about $3 billion a year at a time when this year’s deficit alone will be $1,200 billion. Finding an offset would be easy: the Government Accountability Office has identified $400 billion spent every year on programs that are wasteful, duplicative, or inefficient.

    John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog saw another lesson in the vote:

    One principal lesson can be drawn from this experience. It happens all the time that Congressional leaders will trumpet a budget agreement that allegedly saves the taxpayers trillions of dollars–not now, of course, but in the “out years.” But the out years never come. Tax increases are rarely deferred to the out years; they take place now, when it counts. But spending cuts? Never today, always tomorrow.

    With America's exploding national debt, and the GSA Las Vegas scandal in the news, one would think Congress would be eager to show voters some level of fiscal restraint. Not so. Yesterday's vote on something as relatively small as a $34 billion spending provision proves one thing: voters are going to have to force lawmakers to quit their spending addiction.
  2. Lucrum


  3. This could easily backfire. Michelle Bachmann and other Tea Party representatives who were against the debt ceiling increase now look like visionaries. This betrayal of a deal reached just a few months ago is also likely to energize the Tea Party. It will also underscore the point that anyone who supports any deal in which tax increases are traded for future cuts is either a fraud or a moron, and in either case, shouldn't be in a leadership position.
  4. pspr


    Kick the can in an election year? I guess if you don't want to lose votes for taking someone's government check away.
  5. Lucrum


    I wonder if IQ47 would refuse to vote for BO if he lost his government check.

    Remember: BO stinks.
  6. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    How do we find out which senators voted to nullify the cuts?
  7. America is run by a class of elites.... Congress, the Administration, certain corporations and their well-connected executives, and some "behind the curtain".

    They spend the public's money without conscience or restraint.... lavish wealth and benefits from tax payer pockets upon themselves.... make laws for "the people" to obey but not them.

    How different is that from the Communist Party elites in the former Soviet Union? Or Saddam Hussein's regime... where he had what, 100 palaces while the majority of his people were dirt poor?

    We have to face it... WE ALL WORK FOR "THEM"! Our notion of "representatives" and "voting" are all a sham.

    :mad: :mad: