- Joined
- Nov 7, 2012
- Messages
- 7,039
- Reaction score
- 3,268
- Location
- Denio Junction
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Since the admin has demonstrated where it likes to apply cuts without a continuing resolution ( monuments, benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, and a few other things) where might they reduce spending without a rise in the debt ceiling? They would have to cut about 20% Id guess since they could only spend what comes in!
Do you think the three white house chefs might get laid off and mooshelle will have to do some cookin for a change?
Since the admin has demonstrated where it likes to apply cuts without a continuing resolution ( monuments, benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, and a few other things) where might they reduce spending without a rise in the debt ceiling? They would have to cut about 20% Id guess since they could only spend what comes in!
Do you think the three white house chefs might get laid off and mooshelle will have to do some cookin for a change?
That is a perfect example of why the president has been crippled by T Party racists. What it all boils down to is that the Republicans are poor losers. When Bill Clinton was elected they immediately began to investigate he and Hillary's activities in Arkansas real estate(Whitewater) and went forward with subsequent investigations into his personal life. Kenneth Starr orchestrated investigations which cost the nation over $100 million and had to impeach over a blow job. They were never able to remove him from office and he left with an approval ranking in the mid 60 percentile.
After losing to Obama they immediately started this "not a citizen" bull**** then after losing to him again in the middle of one of the worst recessions in the last sixty years everything he does gets a protest from all Republicans. The good news is that Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections and the future doesn't look good for them. Romney only won two demographics...white men and folks over 65. Since whites will soon be a minority in America and since folks over 65 are dying 100 times faster than those under 30 I'd say their strategy is seriously flawed....if they even have one.
Totally agree man. Idk why our gov't feels the need to make things painful. I hope, I really do, that isn't what they're doing. I hope that it's just the nature of the cuts. I really do.A 20% reduction in spending by Obama would be in areas that caused the most disruption to society as possible, it would not be a cut in waste, fraud and duplicitous departments and jobs.
Right, and Democrats are guiltless.... Give me a break....That is a perfect example of why the president has been crippled by T Party racists. What it all boils down to is that the Republicans are poor losers. When Bill Clinton was elected they immediately began to investigate he and Hillary's activities in Arkansas real estate(Whitewater) and went forward with subsequent investigations into his personal life. Kenneth Starr orchestrated investigations which cost the nation over $100 million and had to impeach over a blow job. They were never able to remove him from office and he left with an approval ranking in the mid 60 percentile.
After losing to Obama they immediately started this "not a citizen" bull**** then after losing to him again in the middle of one of the worst recessions in the last sixty years everything he does gets a protest from all Republicans. The good news is that Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections and the future doesn't look good for them. Romney only won two demographics...white men and folks over 65. Since whites will soon be a minority in America and since folks over 65 are dying 100 times faster than those under 30 I'd say their strategy is seriously flawed....if they even have one.
Just for clarification everyone. The Tea Party didn't exist when Bill Clinton was in office. That is all.
The only thing Obama would feel comfortable reducing would be the military...which happens to be one of the few things the Constitution mandates spending on. He seems to think that all he needs is a bunch of drones and a few guys operating them.
Since the admin has demonstrated where it likes to apply cuts without a continuing resolution ( monuments, benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, and a few other things) where might they reduce spending without a rise in the debt ceiling? They would have to cut about 20% Id guess since they could only spend what comes in!
Do you think the three white house chefs might get laid off and mooshelle will have to do some cookin for a change?
They could always gut the f-35.
Okay. I don't understand it so I'll come up with another reason. The Democrats won't negotiate. How's that?Actually THEY is the (T)Republican party. Anyone who doesn't understand that should come up with some other reason the government is shut down.
I guess that explains how Bush got away with starting two wars, one totally unnecessary and doubling the national debt.
A 20% reduction in spending by Obama would be in areas that caused the most disruption to society as possible, it would not be a cut in waste, fraud and duplicitous departments and jobs.
Unfortunately, the President keeps talking about default so, apparently he has that on the table. It is a bad option. I doubt he will default, however. That talk is just scare tactics. If they can't increase the borrowing they will be limited to revenue plus future borrowing on repaid debt. Actually, that's how it should have been working from the start.
The only thing Obama would feel comfortable reducing would be the military...which happens to be one of the few things the Constitution mandates spending on. He seems to think that all he needs is a bunch of drones and a few guys operating them.
How much does the Constitution say we have to spend on the military?
Doesn't matter. What does matter is that Democrats have a long history of cutting military spending...to the point that when we DO need the military, it has been crippled enough to cause problems. Obama is much the same.
If we stop being the world's police we can spend less on our military. Much less.
Close, but not quite. It would be in areas where it was disrupt REPUBLICANS the most. Like contracts with venders who gave more to republican candidates than democratic candidates. Cut some of those contracts, and those companies are going to be beating at the doors of the republican candidates that they purchased, begging them to submit to Obama.
And to states that vote republican, which is actually pretty easy to do since they tend to be the "taker" states, like my state.
I'm not trying to be partisan about this, it's just the way that I see things, it's what I would do if I was POTUS and in this situation.
Doesn't matter. What does matter is that Democrats have a long history of cutting military spending...to the point that when we DO need the military, it has been crippled enough to cause problems. Obama is much the same.
So even though US military spending is 49% of the entire worlds spending on military, our military is crippled? We can't even defend ourselves? Well golly, then why do we have military bases in 110 countries?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?