I need a liberal or dem's take on this
 

this is not a "gotcha" question, I really want to know how you feel about this.
In January, we raised taxes. There is no debate. It wasnt just a rate increase. for people with high incomes, its divs, cap gains etc. its a decent increase.
So, here is my question. Obama promised to go line by line, cut spending. There have been so many times broad statements - 800 billion cuts here, no details, etc. Now we have a 85B pending cut and its a HUGE deal. WHY?
Obama promised to cut. Where is his plan for 800B and why cant we implement 10% of that and be good?
WHy are tax increases still the ONLY SOLUTION Obama can come up with? How do you guys see this?
(please no lib bashing - Im looking for an honest response)

You piss of less voters raising taxes than taking away support!

He also promised to cut the debt in half by the end of his first term
They are talking of releasing imprisoned illegals because of the cuts
I can't believe how many people are going to suffer and die because of 85 billion dollars lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the answer. The Democrats, at the national level, have to keep spending. Well-funded (yet utterly ineffective) social programs guarantee that Democrats can gather a coalition of voters among African Americans, Hispanic Americans, academia, labor unions, and die-hard liberals. They need that coalition to defeat those who buy into elementary school arithmetic.

I have asked Spence and Paul S to please show me the math that shows that we can put any kind of meaningful dent in our fiscal problems, with tax hikes. And all I get is chirping crickets for an answer.

We need tens and tens of trillions of dollars before the baby Boomers are gone. Do the liberals admit that, at least? Or do they deny that?I truly wish we could get there, simply by tweaking tax rates on the billionaires. Spence, PaulS, RIROCKHOUND, PLEASE show me a tax increase that (1) raises that kind of revenue, and (2) only impacts rich people. Show me that plan, and as God is my witness, I'll support it at the top of my lungs.

so how has the president been preparing for this?

For much of the past year, however, agencies had been told by the White House to spend as if the cuts weren't going to happen because they still seemed avoidable and planning for them would "divert scarce resources from other important agency activities and priorities."

Then Congress, as part of the deal to avert the fiscal cliff in January, postponed the sequester for two months. So now agencies only have seven months to make the cuts by Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year.

They all lie. Remember when bush said that the war in Iraq wouldn't cost us anything and that Iraq was going to pay us back with their oil ??
I don't see ona as logic either Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great chart reelinrod. It is not a drastic cut. And if you also showed tax revenues, and how those revenues are dwarfed by the expenditures...you can only conclude that the only thing wrong with this cut, is that it's not nearly enough.

In reality it isn't a cut in actual expenditures; it is a 2% cut from the 7% baseline budget increase . . .

So, the parade of misery stated by the President must all depend upon a 2% increse in federal spending and can not be supported by current spending.

I ask how have all the actions he claims will cease been paid for up to now?

And let's not forget, these cuts were his idea. Not the idea of the GOP boogeyman, his idea. Back in 2011, Obama threatened to veto any continuing resolution that did not include these exact cuts. He is on record as saying that.

Yet now that we are here, he says it's the GOP's fault. It's unbelievable.

How is that for hope and change? How is that for accountability, honesty, and leadership? How is that for the guy who claims to be non-partisan (cue the canned laughter here)...

Funny that I haven't seen Spence or PaulS weigh in here...I guess they're seaching the Huffington Post for the agreed-upon response. Something about racism or George Bush, I'll wager...

Nope, been working to build a strong economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey Spence, good thinking to get all your business for the year in now.
It looks like you will be homebound, after these Dranconian sequestered cuts and flying comes to standstill. :)
Oh that's right you'll also need to stock up on food for your home being Pelosie says Meals on Wheels will be descimated. :hihi: :D

Spence, in all seriousness...what does it say to you that Obama demanded these cuts, and is now blaming the GOP for the doom that is to come?

Is answering a simple question, too much to ask?

Rudy just stated a wonderful analogy (paraphrased). . .

Your employer who currently pays you $100,000 a year comes to you and says that next year your salary will be $110,000.

He comes back to you before the raise goes into effect and tells you that your new salary will be $107,000 . . .

So now you have to take your kids out of school, sell your car, cut your cell phone and cable TV, tell your daughter she can't go to the prom, etc, etc, etc . . .


Ogloomer's demagoguery is absolutely disgusting.

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7148d538.png

can you believe this?

(CNN) - Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White House's handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.

"They're not happy at all," he said on CNN's "The Situation Room," adding that an e-mail from a senior administration official - who he would not name - communicated a message which caused him great concern.

Of course I can believe it. This administration, and Obama in particular, are incredibly thin-skinned and have zero tolerance for dissent. Matt Damon (who cares what he thinks) said he was disappointed in Obama. So Obama calls a press conference to say that after seeing Damon's latest movie, Obama is also disappointed in Matt Damon's performance.

This guy cannot let any criticism go unanswered. Never. Ever. Imagine if George Bush responded personally every time a movie star criticized him?

Of course. Remember this?

"A reporter for CBS claimed that White House and Department of Justice officials screamed and cursed at her due to a story she was pursuing about a controversial DOJ program.

Sharyl Attkisson, the investigative reporter for CBS, made the allegations . . . that, when she broke a damning story about [Fast and Furious], she got extremely aggressive pushback from the Obama administration. She said that a DOJ spokeswoman named Tracy Schmaler had yelled at her on Monday about the story, but that it was nothing compared to the way a White House spokesman named Eric Schultz had acted.

Attkisson said he had "literally screamed at me and cussed at me" about the story, and that the White House also told her that she was the only reporter not being "reasonable" about the issue."

HuffPo, October 5, 2011

Two great graphics ReelinRod!
Shows how finances go completely out of control when the Libs are in.
I laugh about the 2.3% cuts when they just got a 2% tax raise and the
increased revenue coming in. LOL, yeah we are all Doomed with cuts like that.

Now I may not be that good at math, but since when does 2.7/3.8=40% ???

And that's just a prerequisite to the numerous other misleading elements of your pies.

-spence

But.. 3.8T is 140% of 2.7... not entirely misleading on that..

what is misleading is that out of the budget, the cuts are not coming from the 80% of the budget that is defense, entitlments etc.. which makes it a joke from both sides...

It doesn't. However, the correct math for calculating the increase is 1.1M (the increase) / 2.7M (the previous budget) = 40%

When the Dow goes from 13,900 to 14,000, the increase isn't calculated as 13,900/14,000 which would equal a 99% increase for the day.

Considering you adhere to the Obama method of calculating numbers, I can understand your confusion.

You work in finance? Seriously?

Spence, if you want to know the increase between a and b, the formula is

(b / a) -1.

In this case, 3.8 / 2.7 - 1 = 41%. So no, you are apparently not that good at math, at least when the math makes your hero look like an incompetent idiot.

"And that's just a prerequisite to the numerous other misleading elements of your pies."

Your 'prerequisite' is demonstrably, irrefutably, mathematically false. So given that your prerequisite was 100% wrong, it stands to reason that any other "misleading elements" you discovered, which are based on that prerequisite, would also be wrong.

Spence, do you concede that 3.8 is indeed 40% more than 2.7? That's fact, that's not some myth invented by #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney or the Koch Brothers or Glenn Beck or some other conservative boogeyman invented by your side, in the attempt to distract people from things like simple arithmetic.

Give Spence a break for crying out loud. He's been working hard to build a strong economy. He's obviously been very busy, so . . .

so in liberal terms, he has been raising taxes?

LMAO. You forgot raising the minimum wage.

Currently front page of CNN:
"President Obama says "dumb, arbitrary" forced spending cuts that take effect today are "unnecessary and inexcusable." "

The President really shouldn't talk about his own policies like that.

Most of the American public is like Drew Barrymore in "50 First Dates" - they wake up every morning and completely forget about what happened yesterday.

Spence, you'r going to have to work a bit harder.

The Officals numbers are out today showing a 4% DECREASE in the average paycheck for Janurary.

Johnny, we are officially in the Twilight Zone. It is breathtaking.

You left out the best part! In the next sentence, CNN says "He blames Republicans".

You could say the pie on the right is 40% larger or has gotten 40% larger but they're not the same equation. Personally I think there's far less value in comparing the relative size of the budgets than in understanding the amount of change which is why I picked the one I did.

Even this though holds little meaning unless it's in context with the budgetary trends. It's no accident that the author picked a moment in time right before the bubble burst and yet just before TARP and Stimulus spending kicked in. Given that it's the pie on the left which is perhaps the anomaly.

We've beaten this dead horse before.

Besides, who ever said I was in finance?

-spence