I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph. Unlike you, I don't sit around regurgitating what others are saying. I'm looking at what you are saying, finding it to be lacking in sense, and pointing out the glaring problems (and stating a few opinions of my own along the way of course).
Here's the deal, in case you're still confused. I'll put it in really simple terms:
When you are doing something "new", that's a new cost. Like spending money on "green jobs", and health care, and god knows what other incredible wastes of money the Dems have been spending money on over the last two years. A "compromise" when doing something new would be to give up something that already exists. So if say a group of people (lets call them "Democrats") want to spend a trillion dollars on some new stuff they think is critically important, that same group should perhaps give up a trillion dollars of spending on other stuff that they already talked us into spending. That way they have to pick which thing they think is *really* important before making us (the taxpayers) pay for their stuff.
But the Dems haven't been doing this. And there's this other group (we'll call them "Conservatives") who have been warning all along that if you keep spending new money on new things, without reducing the amount of money you're continuing to spend on the old things, eventually you'll run out of money and get yourself into trouble. Yes, this is a pretty common sense sorta thing, which most people learn after their first run-in with a credit card in college, but the Dems for some reason forgot that lesson and insisted on doing this anyway. Now we're in financial trouble and the conservatives are trying to come up with things that the Dems should have give up on spending to make up for all the new spending in the first place. Now, to be anywhere near fiscally sane, the amount given up should equal the amount they added, right? But the Dems aren't going to stand for that! Nosirreee! They want to keep spending more money (Bad Dems!). So want to pretend that the new amount of spending isn't really new. It's just normal spending. So we have to compromise from a position of not cutting anything instead of one in which we cut an amount equal to what they increased the spending by.
Is there anyone who really thinks that makes any sense? Really? Because that's what you're arguing here. And yes, I'm well aware of all the wrangling that politicians do over this, but at the end of the day, what matters is that we're spending more than we can afford and have to cut that spending. The amount the GOP put into the house bill is a drop in the proverbial bucket, but it's giving us a really good idea of just how unwilling the Dems are to do anything to take responsibility for all that money they spent. If they're fighting this hard over 61 billion dollars, how on earth are we ever going to make up for the trillions of dollars they've spent over the last few years?
I'd add a prediction, but of course we all know that Obama promised us that our taxes wouldn't go up. Hmmm....
King Nobby wrote:
More words please