This country has been run like a union for far to long. If we continue we will end up same place as unionized companies. Be bought by china. How much of our debt belongs to china already?
Not really, we currently spend about 1.1 Trillion more than we take in. If you are to add 1.6 Trillion to revenue over ten years, 1.2 would go to new spending to makeup for the gap in spending we currently have. So that would just break even AKA balance budget. The 400 Billion would be actual reduction... So if you were to actually cut spending & raise taxes, I bet even your old self could figure out what is truly meant by the article. You are trying to make an argument over semantics. No one is fooled Red.
A trillion ain't shit. Obama has been running budget deficits larger than that every year for going on 5 yrs now
Yeah, but it doesn't have to be that way. Years ago people chose to live together and form communities, pooling their resources to better the lives of everyone. We have police forces, fire departments, libraries, paved roads, etc. as a result. Unless you refuse the services of all of these, you're not taking care of yourself. You're relying others to take care of you and it's totally fine. We all play a role in this country. Unfortunately that's not going to happen, nor should it. That's because these people live in the same neighborhood as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Yahweh and the Tooth Fairy in a land that exists only in your imagination. They also have teeth that never decay, no sickness and it's eternally 76 and sunny. I like how you cut that first sentence short and left of the part that states "the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee contends". I mean those guys are totally straightforward and honest about everything, right? They have no reason to mislead anyone? I'll wait for the CBO to release their numbers and not the GOP side of the Senate Budget Committee or The Weekly Standard.
Again, you are making things up right along with ole JS. Sessions never said anything about new programs. He never inferred it. He said the new revenues would largely be applied to new spending. I don't find that hard to believe. Obama loves to spend lots more money than every other president ever. Here is the deal the House Republicans need to take to Obama. We will give you Clinton Era tax rates for everyone. You give us Clinton era spending levels. A great compromise. The fiscal cliff is averted. Obama would never go for such a deal because it would actually involve real across the board spending cuts.
Numbers are not semantics, look it up. I made an argument over the bogus numbers offered by the author. He admits that he fudged the numbers to come up with those figures. Game over.
Yes, Sessions lied about the numbers, making the graph and the entire argument moot. I have made up nothing, just made you look at the source with all of its flaws apparent. Then why the feigned outrage? Of course he inferred it. Just read BRETT's comments after he posted the graph. Revenues applied to budgeted spending is money that does not have to be borrowed. This lowers the deficit. How exactly is that bad?
