Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Dec 3, 2012, 09:20 AM

So far Obama's effort to "compromise" with Republicans on averting the fiscal cliff with his "balanced approach" of spending cuts and tax hikes has resulted in a proposal "literally laughed at by Mitch McConnell) of $1.6 trillion in tax hikes in exchange for nothing Also included in his grand bargain, giving himself free reign to raise the debt ceiling at will.

According to his main man in the "negotiations" Timothy Geithner, he's offering tons of spending cuts - by not spending money we weren't going to spend anyway.

WALLACE: Or they now say because you're not willing to cut spending enough.

GEITHNER: No, but that's not true. Again, if they want to do more on the spending side than the $600 billion we proposed on top of the trillion already enacted, in top of the savings from the wars, then they can tell us how they propose –

WALLACE: Savings in the wars that we were never going to fight?

GEITHNER: No, that's not true. We're — as you know, we're winding down two wars.

WALLACE: I understand that.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: And you are thinking savings that nobody thought that you were going to spend that money any way. It's a budget gimmick, sir.

GEITHNER: No, that's not right. You know, let me say it this way, those were expensive wars, not just in Americans lives but in terms of the taxpayers' resources. And when you end them as the president is doing, they reduce our long term deficits and like in the Republican budget proposals, the world should reflect and recognize what that does in savings.

And we propose to use those savings to reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America. We think that makes a lot of sense.

WALLACE: But it was money that wasn't going to be spent anyway, and –

GEITHNER: If those wars have gone on, they would be spent.

WALLACE: I understand. But you're not saving — you're not ending the wars for budget purposes. You're ending the wars because of a foreign policy decision. The wars weren't going to be fought. You're not really saving money.

GEITHNER: Chris, we all agree –

WALLACE: I mean, it's a budget gimmick, but it's money never intended to spend.

So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending?

tomder55 · Dec 3, 2012, 09:30 AM

Speaker Bonehead should pass a bill extending the Bush era rates ,and if the Senate Dems don't move the bill ,or the President vetoes it;then they should use the President's argument against him... that he is going allow 98% of the people's tax rates to increase just to get a tax increase on 2% .

We are now hearing from both sides that they are willing to let the so called fiscal cliff happen . I get the feeling that they really don't think it would be as bad as advertised.

excon · Dec 3, 2012, 09:32 AM

Hello Steve:

So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending?

Well, we can give it back to the rich, whose money it is in the first place, so they can create jobs that they haven't YET created for as long as they've had these tax cuts...

That makes as much sense.

Excon

speechlesstx · Dec 3, 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Well, we can give it back to the rich, whose money it is in the first place, so they can create jobs that they haven't YET created for as long as they've had these tax cuts...

That makes as much sense.

excon

So you agree Obama's offer is just a gimmick that means nothing.

paraclete · Dec 3, 2012, 01:34 PM

Time you learned to fly, watch the bump when you land

excon · Dec 3, 2012, 08:33 PM

So you agree Obama's offer is just a gimmick that means nothing

Hello again, Steve:

Well, it means as much as it can in the middle of negotiations.

Excon

talaniman · Dec 3, 2012, 09:56 PM

Offer on the table, like it or NOT! Put your offer up its your turn. That's how you negotiate and just criticizing ain't going to cut it. Stop stalling.

Everybody agrees on middle class tax cuts, so pass that, and fight about anything you want later.

TUT317 · Dec 4, 2012, 02:21 AM

"So what other ways can we not spend money we weren't going to spend anyway to cut spending"

I think this depends as to whether you are talking about 'spending cuts' or 'savings'

Two different things

I would argue that Geithner is right in that they are making savings, but he has nothing to offer in terms spending cuts.

Tut

tomder55 · Dec 4, 2012, 04:55 AM

The Dems are ridiculous . They consider reductions in the rate of spending increases a spending cut. They just rejected out of hand without discussion the Republic proposal to slightly reduce the cost of living increases in Social Security .

excon · Dec 4, 2012, 05:41 AM

Hello again, tom:

They just rejected out of hand without discussion the Republic proposal to slightly reduce the cost of living increases in Social Security

Personally, I don't believe the fix should be taken off the backs of the beneficiaries.

You believe in a flat tax, don't you? If we charged everybody a flat SS tax, SS would be solvent forever. Instead the rich only pay a very small percentage of their income toward SS, while the poor pay the FULL LOAD.. In fact, the richer they are, the smaller percentage they pay.. Look. Let's make everybody pay the SAME rate. Isn't that fair?

Excon

tomder55 · Dec 4, 2012, 06:37 AM

You forget ,it isn't a tax ,it's a premium. If you tell me that the rich would get proportionate return for their extra $$ then I'd say yeah ,eliminate the maximum. But the left see Social Security Insurance as just another welfare program. That has been the fraud of the plan from the start .
But the Repubics also want means testing... so that should calm your panic that the rich are getting away with something

paraclete · Dec 4, 2012, 01:00 PM

You meant to say you don't have means testing on SS no wonder they want to tax the rich, no Tom, the rich get protected by aircrft carriers and diplomatic services, the poor have no use of those

tomder55 · Dec 7, 2012, 04:01 AM

Timothy Geithner: U.S. 'Absolutely' Should Get Rid Of Debt Ceiling

Went to the bank yesterday and argued that my spending shouldn't be constrained by limits they place on my credit .

excon · Dec 7, 2012, 04:38 AM

Hello again, tom:

So, the problem we have is ENGLISH, and if you only understood it, you'd be a lefty... Of course your bank won't let you go OVER your SPENDING limit.

But, the debt ceiling isn't about BUYING stuff. It's about PAYING for the stuff we already bought... Now, if you asked your bank whether you should PAY for what you already bought, I'll bet they'd say YES...

excon

tomder55 · Dec 7, 2012, 05:08 AM

No ,what has already been spent is already in the debt .

This is to pay for more spending ;to fund the operations of the government.

Edit . I stand by my bank example. If I'm already extended with legal obligations ,I couldn't go to the bank and demand they extend my credit without conditions.

excon · Dec 7, 2012, 05:14 AM

Hello again, tom:

This is to pay for more spending. Not for what is already owed.

Uhhhh, no.

Excon

tomder55 · Dec 7, 2012, 05:19 AM

See my edit.. I removed that line while you were responding .

speechlesstx · Dec 7, 2012, 07:04 AM

In ENGLISH, you don't need to raise the DEBT ceiling unless you're adding more DEBT.

excon · Dec 7, 2012, 07:07 AM

Hello again, wingers:

So, then you DON'T understand what it is? I got it, but don't you think you SHOULD know a little something about it BEFORE you post?? Nahhh, maybe not.

excon

speechlesstx · Dec 7, 2012, 07:13 AM

I can't put it any more plain English, ex. Now if Obama would speak to us in plain English instead of code words and political-speak Americans might get it, too. You probably believe Obama when he says he's offering a "balanced approach." Bwa ha ha!!