Washington Post: [Emphasis Mine]
Nationally, Republicans are widely critical of their party’s leadership in the debt talks. Nearly six in 10 in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll say GOP leaders are not doing enough to compromise with Obama on deficit issues.
Half of the Republicans surveyed in the poll said the best way to reduce the deficit is by an exclusive focus on cutting federal spending, but nearly as many accept new taxes as part of the mix. Most Republicans support higher taxes on those earning $250,000 and up annually and on oil and gas companies.
Obama made that pointFriday night after Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Cantor abandoned the talks, saying “There are a lot of Republican voters out there who are puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done. Because the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the American people believe we should have a balanced approach.”
But in this pocket of Virginia [ ed. note: Cantor’s district], many Republicans were inclined to blame the White House for the impasse.
“I think it goes back to when Obama bailed out the banks,” said Robin Salyer, who works for the American Red Cross. “The same people that put us there are the ones in charge now.”
Told that the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation became law in 2008, when George W. Bush was president, Salyer said: “I blame both of them.”
Obviously, Americans feel the need to blame and often the blame is misapplied as shown above. Americans also tend to point to which ever party they do not consider their own to cast blame. Most Americans are tired of clashing ideologies.
“Cut spending” rhetoric has been around for as long as I can remember. It is said often and really means nothing. Specifically, ideologues want to chisel away at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. On a broader basis, “cut spending” usually goes after someone else’s pet project but never the person’s own personal pet project. Traditionally, strong national security folks want to go after social programs and those strong on social programs want to go after the Pentagon for excesses.
Times of war, high unemployment, and financial down periods hardly seem the time to implement huge cuts in defense spending or social programs. This might just be the time to start winding down on military and defense spending as we disengage from our various wars. However, this winding down needs to be incremental. This might be the time to define what really are social programs. We throw that term around loosely. Are there overlaps? Which programs get outside help from charities and faith based groups? How about the entitlements? Many people have paid in to the various entitlements for 50 plus years. Pulling the rug out from those people is simply unacceptable.
Before our leaders start slicing and dicing, it would be a good idea to clearly define the terms in the rhetoric so we all know what each is talking about. For most of us, we just don’t want our own ox gored. Most Americans want the very wealthy to have to pony up a little more. Most Americans don’t want someone else’s political scores to be settled on the backs of the seniors, the poor and anyone else who might be in the gun sights of the ‘stop spending’ crowd.
Finally, there is no free lunch. Sometimes we have to pay a little more. Our wars were free. No one sent us a bill. Our young were not drafted, our young were not killed. That unpleasant reality all was heaped on the backs of the military families rather than the general population.
Those of us who had 401k type retirement got nailed during 2008 crash. Some of us are just recovering. Others without those types of portfolios really just got to watch. People lost homes and jobs. Some have recovered, some have not. Many people have not been affected at all. They get to read about it in the papers and hear about it on TV. But there is no free lunch. We might just have to pay a little more taxes or take a little less in deductions on our taxes returns. The bill has arrived. The elected leadership needs to protect our economy and get the debt ceiling raised so our country can operate. This needs to be done without further delay. They can pontificate and posture afterwards. Dueling egos and ideologies need to be cast aside and let’s deal with reality.
It’s interesting to witness the willing self-destruction of a political party who completely misinterpreted the reasons for their successes last November. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
You willing to bet the ranch on that one, Emma?
From the Politico:
Myth: The talks collapsed over Obama’s demand for $400 billion more in revenue over 10 years.
Reality: Boehner didn’t have the votes.
The Obama-Boehner bargain would have been a $3 trillion to $3.5 trillion deal that made a serious stab at the national debt for the first time in 15 years, kick-started entitlement reform and broached the issue of tax equality. And it collapsed over a measly $40 billion in revenue a year? Ten percent of the total?
The truth is there was no guarantee that Boehner had the votes even before Obama called for the additional tax revenue — and the $800 billion he reportedly okayed was simply the high-end Bush-era tax cuts the White House had promised to kill months ago
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59731.html#ixzz1T1RHf2YO
If we are really serious about deficit reduction, we need to talk about increasing revenue. This is simple math.
Let’s see…we’ve talked about deficit reduction for decades.
We’ve talked about increasing revenue for decades.
We’ve cut taxes and raised taxes to help cut the debt.
We’ve compromised dozens of times to raise the debt limit, saying “just this one more time.”
We’ve promised future cuts for decades.
None of it has worked. And the politicians are proposing, yet again, the same old…same old. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s actually cut spending NOW, since its never been tried before. Congress always spends more than it takes in. Historically our tax revenue is about 15-18% of GDP per year. Our outgo is about 20%. Currently its about 24%
And trust me on this…..Starry knows simple!
I’ll be honest with you, raising taxes doesn’t bother me if they could avoid abusing the middle class. But therein lies the problem….they can’t hit ANYONE except the middle class.
@Cargosquid
Reality check Cargo. Wars and recessions cost money. Maybe more of it is needed to run the country.
Cargo, you keep saying ‘stop spending’ like a frustrated parrot. You have not yet ever told us the reality of having wars pay for themselves, what to do about people waiting for those checks, or what we do in emergencies whether it is a weather related episode or an attack, or financial crisis. We have to respond. And no, we can’t just close down agencies and departments just because YOU don’t like them, or *I* don’t like them.
Slowpoke, I am tired of being hit. I don’t like it that 40% pay no tax but why try to get blood out of a turnip. What good does it do to tax the poor only to turn around and give hand outs.
“The Obama-Boehner bargain would have been a $3 trillion to $3.5 trillion deal that made a serious stab at the national debt for the first time in 15 years, kick-started entitlement reform and broached the issue of tax equality.”
$3trillion to $3.5trillion….interesting. Funny, same amount for the cost of the two sandboxes the Military is playing in in terms of a one year expenditure.
@Moon-howler
But that’s just it. We’re NOT paying for anything. We are borrowing money for OTHER crap. Paying for something means repaying what we borrowed.
Your complaint that we didn’t pay for the wars, etc have merit. So why do you support NOW what you are stating happened then? These trillions that Obama and the Congress want are not paying for the war. They are paying for the additional spending that they tacked on. The entire war effort consumes about 1% GDP. It is NOT driving the deficit.
And I’m not supporting the closing of agencies because I don’t like them. Lets take the worst. The dept of Ed is the most recent agency created, supposedly to improve our education system. Has it worked? NO. So, why are we wasting money on it?
Raymond, where are you getting your figures that the war is costing 3-3.5 trillion per year? If that was the case, the cost of the war would equal our entire yearly gov’t budget.
Also, any cuts mentioned are false. We have NEVER enacted any cuts that were promised. Furthermore, if the spending cuts were (fat chance) enacted, that’s still only a reduction in the increase of planned spending, not reductions in the budget.
Moon, yes, I keep saying cut spending. Are you saying that we should not? What is it that you want? Are you comfortable with 1.5 trillion deficits for the next 10 years?
I don’t recall registering a complaint. Perhaps you meant to say observation.
What metric are you using to determine if the dept. of ed has ‘worked?’ What did those setting it up want to achieve? Who declared it didn’t work?
Saying it isn’t getting it done. It just sounds ridiculous without solid plans about how the various programs for the poor (food, housing, medical care) are giong to provide. How will states be protected if federal medicaid funds are chopped. Its neat to say stop spending but without a plan to handle something like this, it is meaningless and silly.
Furthermore, has the tea party that is clearly obstructionist at the moment (blocking Bohner and O’Connell to a lesser degree) realized what no increase in debt ceiling will do? How about that math? X coming in, X + Y going out?
Its time to stop posturing and look at the reality of how things really are.