When i saw this video i couldnt help but think of Sctaphagos. <embed src="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/player.swf" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="id1=81326171" wmode="transparent" width="567" height="345" allowfullscreen="true" />
this is so annoying to me. don't they realize that if they do not make a stand on the budget the republican party will be split in half. who are they working for? is that their game plan, to betray Americans? what are we going to do if republicans are split in two?
I'll check it for nutmeg. $60 billion $60,000,000,000 of $14 trillion $14,000,000,000,000 DEFECIT is $6 out of $1,400 dollars $60 billion $60,000,000,000 of $1.3 trillion $1,300,000,000,000 BUDGET is $6 out of $130 dollars Even so, this is still peanuts. $100 billion should be the bare minimum in initial reductions.
The repubs and dems serve the same master, haven't you figured that out yet? If a family has budget problems, they try to do two things: Reduce expenses and increase revenues. Yet in our government we have two sides that increase spending, and voted to not increase revenue. I predicted before that once many of the teabaggers who just got voted in, once they taste the good life of D.C., will talk the talk, but they won't walk the walk. I have also predicted a strong third party candidate, ala Ross Perot, who will split the vote and favor Obama re-election. The teabaggers are a principled lot...or so they claim, so why wouldn't they break off from the old line GOP and neocons, and Reaganites who help to create the problem? What needs to actually happen for the republican party is to once and for all, and finally denounce the policies of Regan that begat the trend of huge budget deficits, and breaks to corporations who have not cared about the American people. We had a budget surplus for the fist time when? Clinton. I don't give Clinton the credit for that, it had to do with great revenues from the dot.com com explosion, and Clinton's refusal to lower taxes. If the republicans had their way during the Clinton era, they would have had tax reductions, which would have led to an even greater deficit than we have now. You can't spend your way out of the problem, and you can't cut taxes as a way out of the problem, you have to be moderate and do both...increase revenues and cut expenses. Our military budget could easily be dramatically cut, and we could stop being the policemen of the world for the sake of US corporations who want to expand into the world to find cheap labor. So much of our foreign policy is governed and influence by the corporations, who don't care about America first.
$100 Billion reduction out of a $3.7Trillion budget is "bare [acceptable] minimum"? FUCKHEAD/COMMIE Odumbo wants to overspend by 50% of tax revenue and you think a 2.5% reduction is a "minimum worthwhile goal"? You're F*in NUTS!!
You seem to have forgotten that the Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency. They won't go along with any of this because they are idiots. The Republicans will need to string this out for a year and a half so they can get more Democrats tossed out of office. Under you logic asking for, say, a $500Billion cut or balancing the budget now will result in nothing happening and the voters becoming frustrated with the Republicans too. So, don't get so hysterical, Scat.
I know they work for same masters. I have been telling you that. Note... you idea about taxes is all screwed up... at this point on the tax vs revenue curve, there is a very high chance that lowering taxes raises revenue and increasing taxes lowers revenue. The problem is spending.