GOP candidates man bulwarks against compromise

The most telling moment of last night’s GOP debate came when host Bret Baier asked the eight candidates whether any of them would accept a debt-reduction deal that made $10 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in taxes.

Let’s talk this through, shall we? Let’s say the Democrats offered to accept $10 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years in return for $1 trillion in higher taxes.

That’s an average of $100 billion a year in higher taxes, which is not that much. On the other hand, it would also require average spending cuts of $1 trillion a year, which is immense. Cuts of that magnitude would strike at the heart of Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements.

Overall, such a deal would produce an $11 trillion reduction in the national debt over what it would have been. And every single person standing on that stage in Iowa would turn it down.

Every single one.

That offers a stark insight into GOP priorities. They may engage in hyperbolic rhetoric about the dangers posed by our debt, but actually doing something about it is much less important than maintaining hidebound, rigid adherence to Norquistian economics.

Sadly, it also confirms the argument that Standard & Poor’s used in deciding to downgrade American debt. As John Chambers, the chairman of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee, told the Wall Street Journal, the “conclusion was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling. It involved a level of brinksmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year.”

A senior director of S&P got even more explicit yesterday in comments to Politico, stating that repeated comments from members of Congress to the effect that they were willing to risk default played a major role in the downgrade decision.

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”

Which is why we are no longer among AAA sovereigns, even though our financial situation is better than some of theirs’.

– Jay Bookman

310 comments Add your comment

JOE C00L

August 12th, 2011
10:53 am

Mary Elizabeth

August 12th, 2011
10:56 am

Was Standard and Poor’s right to downgrade the U.S. credit rating? AJC, 8/11/11

Paul Krugman’s answer in AJC, 8/11/11:

“The truth is that as far as the straight economics goes, America’s long-run fiscal problems shouldn’t be all that hard to fix. . .

“So why can’t we do that? Because we have a powerful political movement in this country that screamed ‘death panels’ in the face of modest efforts to use Medicare funds more effectively, and preferred to risk financial catastrophe rather than agree to even a penny in additional revenues.

The real question facing America, even in purely fiscal terms, isn’t whether we’ll trim a trillion here or a trillion there from deficits. It is whether the extremists now blocking any kind of responsible policy can be defeated and marginalized.”

JOE C00L

August 12th, 2011
10:57 am

How does one turn down 10 to 1. He11, i know Cain and Romney deep down would take it. Do you CONs really worship taxes that much that a 10 to 1 deal you wouldnt take? Crazy!

Mary Elizabeth

August 12th, 2011
10:58 am

Krugman’s words are why the 2012 election is so vital.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
10:59 am

Defaulting on the debt is the ultimate welch and no personal responsibility.

Huntsman nailed it last night and happy the cons hate him.

He would probably be the best candidate against Obama.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:02 am

Nice to see the Republicans and TeaNuts are still standing by their pledge to Grover rather than caring about the country.

Chuck Haley’s “incredible frustration” with Washington politics drove him to speak out at Rep. Paul Broun’s town hall meeting Tuesday in northeast Georgia. The banker was also upset that Broun voted against the debt-ceiling deal rather than compromise. “Washington is out of control,” Haley, 49, told the Republican congressman, then added: “A no vote is not always the vote that will bring change.” The mood at a handful of town hall meetings attended by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution bore out a recent New York Times/CBS News poll that showed 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. http://www.ajc.com/news/anger-at-congress-surfaces-1099345.html

Seems more and more Americans are waking up to the Tea Nut nonsense.

Bosch

August 12th, 2011
11:02 am

I must ask again because the last time no one answered me.

Who is this mysterious Grover Nordquist?

I’m beginning to think he’s like J.D. Sallinger or Thomas Pynchon.

ragnar danneskjold

August 12th, 2011
11:03 am

As the entire economic collapse is due to shifting private capital to the government followed by egregiously wasteful spending, there is no intelligent reason to raise taxes in the middle of a depression. The smarter course is to take a meat-ax to the ranks of the regulators, to allow the economy to blossom again. That is the rational way to raise revenues, but our democrat friends are less interested in raising revenues than in confiscating private wealth.

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:03 am

Jay, we spend too much. The more revenue, the more spending. The spending has to be backed down.

WOODSTOCK MIKE

August 12th, 2011
11:04 am

“That’s an average of $100 billion a year in higher taxes, which is not that much. On the other hand, it would also require average spending cuts of $1 trillion a year, which is immense. Cuts of that magnitude would strike at the heart of Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements.”

If we know that the reveunue increases are “not that much” why would Democrats take the position of not accepting a deal without revenue increases? If we know this type of revenue increase does virtually nothing, why did they hold up the deal that had 4 trillion in cuts with no revenue increases? If S&P made there decision based on a few Republicans saying “maybe we should default” they shouldn’t be in business. And if you follow the deficit you know that S&P has been threatening a credit downgrade for months and it was due to primarily one issue, far too much government borrowing.

Jay

August 12th, 2011
11:05 am

“As the entire economic collapse is due to shifting private capital to the government followed by egregiously wasteful spending ….”

Now THAT’S some revisionist economics of the first order!

Truly a work of stunning magnitude.

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:07 am

Is Norquist akin to Saul Alinsky?

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:08 am

Look cons.

The President campaigned on cutting the deficit.

The scalpel vs the ax.

Remember?.

It should be done AFTER they recovered the 14 million jobs you cons lost.

Use some common sense cons.

WOODSTOCK MIKE

August 12th, 2011
11:08 am

“The real question facing America, even in purely fiscal terms, isn’t whether we’ll trim a trillion here or a trillion there from deficits. It is whether the extremists now blocking any kind of responsible policy can be defeated and marginalized.”

This quote is hilarious, when we are facing a situation where too much borrowing has caused massive deficits and it’s on an unsustainable path the people that want to cut back spending the most are considered extremists.

Bosch

August 12th, 2011
11:08 am

Like I said Jay, sometimes it takes some brain power to come up with stoopid of such magnitude.

Bosch

August 12th, 2011
11:09 am

Tommy,

I was trying to come up with that boogey man’s name the other day and couldn’t for the life of me –thanks!!!

JOE C00L

August 12th, 2011
11:10 am

Norquist is the CONs pimp!

WOODSTOCK MIKE

August 12th, 2011
11:10 am

“The President campaigned on cutting the deficit.

The scalpel vs the ax.

Remember?.

It should be done AFTER they recovered the 14 million jobs you cons lost.”

When can we expect Obama’s policies to create some jobs? Just wondering the timeframe?

ragnar danneskjold

August 12th, 2011
11:10 am

Dear Jay, at risk of exposing your economics limitations, can you describe the difference between the effects of increasing taxation and “crowding out” borrowers? (There is none.) Do you think increasing regulators has any disincentive effects on economic growth? (They do.) Can you describe any action of democrats over the past 40 years that would make a person want to start a business?

Until leftists learn the role of “incentive” in the capitalist engine, you will continue to decry the voice in the wilderness as “revisionist,” substituting epithets for thought.

Jerome Horwitz

August 12th, 2011
11:11 am

This is not surprising. There’s much posturing and hyperbole during debtates and political rallies. It’s playing to the base and both sides are guilty of it. Just hope once in office the campaign ends and the governance begins. We just haven’t seen that lately.

Bosch

August 12th, 2011
11:11 am

Wait a minute…..my google isn’t broke!

WOODSTOCK MIKE

August 12th, 2011
11:11 am

“The scalpel vs the ax.

Remember?.”

Yeah, I remember that, but since he took office the deficit is up 4 trillion, guess that must be a small scalpel, LOL!

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:11 am

In case anyone missed it…. Its fun to see a Fox Beauty Contester who rants against entitlements attack someone else for the entitlement she claims. Lactate Intolerance” Stewart does
great job as usual.

Bosch

August 12th, 2011
11:12 am

“When can we expect Obama’s policies to create some jobs? Just wondering the timeframe?”

Yeah Woodstock Mike, I was just wondering when Boehner’s policies were gonna create some jobs too since that’s all we heard from GOP candidates during last years campaign….and I’ve done more to create jobs than Boehner at this point.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:12 am

mike,

He added 2 million jobs before the gop terrorism to derail the recovery.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:12 am

Dang it Bosch. I was going to google it for you :D

md

August 12th, 2011
11:13 am

Of course they turned it down……..for starters, the deal would never be offered………silly questions don’t need real answers……………

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:13 am

Getalife:

Do you mean Obama’s campaign promise of cutting the deficit in half in his first term? That promise?

Lots of “Con” conniving there.

Mary Elizabeth

August 12th, 2011
11:13 am

The biggest shift in capital has been to the top 2% of wealth in this nation. The working/middle class are hurting because of a heavy-handed ideological “trickle down” financial theory that is not working. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at the concentration of wealth at the top in America today. This must be exposed and changed.

From the book “Jefferson” by Saul Padover, p. 68:

“In his quietly unyielding way Jefferson held fast to his human faith, that men had inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty could not coexist with priviledged aristocracy, nor happiness be found where excess wealth was permitted to be concentrated in a few hands.”

Bosch

August 12th, 2011
11:14 am

You’re a pal Keep, thanks! But I must be, must be personally responsible.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:15 am

Tommy,

His plan was thwarted by gop terrorism.

Try to keep up.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:15 am

Washington doesn’t have a spending problem, it has a DO-NOTHING-ABOUT-JOBS problem.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:16 am

Or perhaps just a “do nothing new” problem, which means nothing can be fixed that’s broken, but nothing can be broken that is fixed. Which is better, I wonder?

Joe the Plutocrat

August 12th, 2011
11:17 am

ragnar, I ain’t no econ whiz, but with $14.8 trillion in red ink staining Uncle Sam’s balance sheet; that “private capital” hasn’t been divert from the private sector. how many times must I say this? the government facilitates the transfer of wealth. poor people have no wealth and no income, but the are the vessel by which Uncle Sam takes “revenue” (taxes on working Americans), or debt (T-bills sold to China and other investors) and “shifts” it to the coffers of the “2%” (corporate citizens) who own 85% of the country. you’ll get no argument from me as far as the role corruption, influence pedaling, etc. play in this PLUTOCRACY, but c’mon now, it’s not like wealth is “redistributed” to poor people or even the U.S. Treasury. Politicians are essentially stock brokers; they buy/sell the law.

stands for decibels

August 12th, 2011
11:20 am

Ok, glad it wasn’t just me for whom the 10:1 hypothetical being rejected by all–including Huntsman–was mind boggling, last night. Of course I already I posted as much.

Who is this mysterious Grover Nordquist?

I’m beginning to think he’s like J.D. Sallinger or Thomas Pynchon.

I’m beginning to think if Grover didn’t exist, we would have to create him.

Uncle Jed

August 12th, 2011
11:21 am

The most telling moment of last night’s GOP debate came when host Bret Baier asked the eight candidates whether any of them would accept a debt-reduction deal that made $10 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in taxes.
++++++++++++++++++++++

I am reminded that this is an opinion column and we are each entitled to our own.

I watched the show all the way through. I thought that particular question presented a political trap and I was somewhat discouraged that they all stepped on the trip wire. Without having an opportunity to offer an expanded response formulated after full consideration of the details, I would have chosen to avoid the trap and not participated in that stunt, which has now become a silly hand-raising technique used in some debate forums. There is no way to come out ahead in that game when dealing with something other than say, “do you like rutabagas?” I would advise my candidates to stay away from the group show of hands in almost all instances.

But I digressed. In my opinion, the most telling moment(s) was each time one of the candidates would correctly and unequivocally point out that the current president is a dismal failure when it comes to leadership and effectively reacting to the economic crisis we are in at this time. The problem for Obama is that he seems totally inept when it comes to economics and I feel said ineptness is due to a gross lack of understanding of the dynamics of the private sector.

++++++++++++++++
Off to $how $ome land. Y’all have the day of your choosing.

Geo

August 12th, 2011
11:21 am

Duh Tommy. Alinsky is the guy that Obama modeled himself after. Norquist is the guy the Dems claim that pulls the strings on the Right. At first they claimed it was Fox, then Rush, then the Koch Brothers, now Norquist. Next week they’ll blame Dean Martin.

Granny Godzilla

August 12th, 2011
11:23 am

Jobs?

Somebody say Jobs?

See Jan Shakwoskys new job bill and it’s brother bill that pays for it.

OR

See the letter fro the Democrats to the Super Duper Congress
demanding they focus on jobs.

and please review

Republicans Have Spent Two Years Blocking Job-Creation Efforts

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:23 am

“His plan was thwarted by gop terrorism.”

Then why did he not cut the deficit when he had a congressional majority for two years?

stands for decibels

August 12th, 2011
11:24 am

Can anyone find anyone on the record as pledging to uphold Alinsky’s principles, come heck or high water?

Thanks in advance.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:25 am

perry is rove’s boy with the new citizen united corruption.

Can he beat willard like mccrazy? He will have more money.

Possibly, because he is a “real ” Christian con and not a Warren Jeff Mormon.

TM

August 12th, 2011
11:25 am

don’t know if its a fact but they keep saying that Reagan agreed to a $1 increase in taxes for a $3 decrease in spending and those cuts never were made. It looks like if you give them more money regardless of the promise they just spend it. Look at the question posed the dems offer to cut 10 trillion over ten years for 1 trillion in taxes over ten years.While do you need an extra 100 billion this year to cut 1 trillion this year. I would be happy if they just cut 900 billion and did not increase the taxes.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:26 am

Uncle Jed: I thought that particular question presented a political trap and I was somewhat discouraged that they all stepped on the trip wire

So what does this mean? You support revenue increases with cuts (ratio heavily on the cuts side)? Does it mean the question just shouldn’t have been asked so they didn’t have a chance to look bad? Does it mean it was “out of context”?

md

August 12th, 2011
11:26 am

The only problem with that little Stewart skit……..there are no laws mandating paid maternity leave……

Maternity/paternity laws only protect against discrimination……..big difference from entitlement programs……………

jconservative

August 12th, 2011
11:26 am

Actually government borrowing is the greatest threat to private capital. When government borrows it literally sucks all the capital out of the economy.

In the history of the US, government taxes have never had a negative effect on private capital formation and job creation. The most robust economic growth periods in the US have been in periods of high taxation, low government borrowing and large scale private formation.

But as our friend Hegel pointed out – “What experience and history teach is this: that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history.“

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
11:26 am

“See Jan Shakwoskys new job bill”

Dumb.

“and it’s brother bill that pays for it.”

And dumber.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:27 am

Tommy: Then why did he not cut the deficit when he had a congressional majority for two years?

This has been answered ad infinitum. You just don’t like the answer apparently.

jt

August 12th, 2011
11:27 am

.

“That offers a stark insight into GOP priorities. They may engage in hyperbolic rhetoric about the dangers posed by our debt, but actually doing something about it is much less important than maintaining hidebound, rigid adherence to Norquistian economics.”
.
It is called principles Jay.
Some folks have ‘em.
Some folks don’t..
.
The GOP/DNC don’t.
Ron Paul supporters do.
.
You would better serve your make believe progressive “principles” by covering your little Libyan “kinectic energy action”.

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:27 am

“The agitator’s job [community organizer], according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the “realization” that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent “self-interest” in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.”

Does any of that sound familiar?

JOE C00L

August 12th, 2011
11:27 am

How do these ppl call themselves good business ppl, but wouldnt take a 10 to 1 deal? If you ever needed an example of extreme, there you have it. I at least thought Ron Paul would have juuuuust maybe, said, “F that, I’d take that deal to save OUR Country”….

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:27 am

Tommy,

It was planned for the budget battle but the gop decided to use terrorism on the debt limit.

Again, try to keep up.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:27 am

Dave R: Ok, if Jan’s jobs bill is dumb, and raising taxes on millionaires to pay for it is dumb, what is a better plan?

md

August 12th, 2011
11:29 am

It means it was a phony question Adam………….10 to 1……what a joke.

Jay

August 12th, 2011
11:29 am

Yes, Tommy, it does sound familiar.

So the Tea Party has been brushing up on its Alinsky, huh….

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:29 am

Who was the only candidate that did not want to welch on our debt?

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
11:30 am

OK, so let’s take a vague hypothetical situation offered in a debate setting where you have 1 minute in which to answer, then paint with a broad brush the candidates that didn’t answer said vague, juvenile question to a serious problem as extremists.

I’m surprised the DNC could come up with such a scenario this quickly for their talking points. Jay.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:30 am

md — a distinction without a difference. But nice try

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:31 am

So Adam, they could pass Obamacare and Stimulus but could not pass a bill dealing with the deficit?

Oh that’s right, they could do all that but not even propose a budget. How silly of me.

Granny Godzilla

August 12th, 2011
11:31 am

Dumber and dumber is what dumbest says when they don’t have an alternative.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:31 am

Who was the only candidate that went big to attack our deficit?

Granny Godzilla

August 12th, 2011
11:33 am

TOMMY

yes

yes

no, do the political math, Boehner was forced to do so as well….

budgets presented on time, sitting on
some credenza in DC

Jay

August 12th, 2011
11:36 am

Dave R., I’m sure if one of the candidates had said yes, he or she would take that deal, the moderator would have asked that candidate for more detail. But since everybody fell into line so quickly and obediently ….

The thing is, you know this is foolishness on their part and bad for the country’s future, but you can’t bring yourself to publicly acknowledge it. And as long as people like you refuse to take them to task for it, choosing party loyalty over rationality, they’ll keep doing it.

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
11:38 am

The alternative to dumb and dumber (because government creating make-work jobs has been so effective in the past) is to get rid of all taxes on capital gains (they’ve already been taxed once), get rid of the tax for repatriated off-shore money, and remove / reduce the regulations on business that get in the way of doing things. You heard Huntsman last night, didn’t you? He builds overseas because the EPA makes it too difficult to build here. It’s not as if he’s polluting foreign countries or putting their workers at risk – it’s just far more cost effective to build and operate elsewhere.

Government has to get out of the way and stop interfering with business.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:38 am

Huntsman was the only candidate that would not default and our President was the only candidate to go big on the deficit.

In a sane America, it should be Huntsman vs President Obama but our cons dwell in la la land and will run another loser.

Thank you cons.

md

August 12th, 2011
11:38 am

“md — a distinction without a difference. But nice try”

Hardly………there is no real cost associated with maternity leave unless a company chooses to do so……that is a huge difference from being mandated to pay……………

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:39 am

dave,

Still supporting cain?

He is not able.

USinUK

August 12th, 2011
11:41 am

md – 11:38 – as the woman from FOX news noted, the US is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer paid family leave after the birth/adoption of a child

not very family-value-ly

Granny Godzilla

August 12th, 2011
11:41 am

yep, that damn EPA….

how dare they not let us crap on the planet….

the nerve!

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:42 am

With the short lived filibuster proof majority that the Dems had in the Senate and the majority in the House, Republicans continue to ask why did Obama not do more to implement his socialist agenda that they object to and just shove everything down their throats and not even talk to Republicans. Of course, reality suggests that they must be ignorant of the other rules of the Senate and the delay caused by their efforts to negotiated with Republicans.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:43 am

Tommy: 1) both of those bills had enough Republican support to get passed, or they would not have been passed. There was never TOTAL control by the Democrats of the Senate.
2) The priority at the time was not deficit reduction, but stopping the economy from continuing to tank.
3) Criticizing the ACA as something that shouldn’t have been done in favor of deficit reduction is hypocritical given the GOP’s historical position and actions on deficit reduction.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:43 am

Looks like our con surrendered.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:44 am

md, so now you want to argue that not all regulations costs business nor impede their competitiveness? How liberal of you!

Bud Wiser

August 12th, 2011
11:45 am

You mention preemptively what you assume critically the Republicans would do, but as usual fail to mention what the democrats would do faced with the massive cuts.

Just a pathetic bark from another media stooge.

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:45 am

Getalife, not hardly.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:46 am

It’s not as if he’s polluting foreign countries or putting their workers at risk

Not intended to be a factual statement. But I bet Davey has the evidence to back this claim throughout the entire chain of production…or is this merely his opinion.

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:47 am

I do enjoy learning a little from the folks who post on here.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:47 am

Dave R: Thank you for a straight answer. You are completely and totally wrong though on the tax end. Reducing taxes in the way you described does not create jobs.

EPA regulations all by themselves, without any detail (and we know you love detail because you said so not too long ago) means nothing. The EPA is there for a reason, and that reason isn’t just to place regulations out of nowhere for no reason and diminish job creation.

md

August 12th, 2011
11:48 am

“not very family-value-ly”

Maybe not, but still a false comparison…………..

No Keep……..just pointing out the fallacy of the argument. Comparing apples to oranges……and Stewart did it for effect. Seems to have worked……………

As for cost…….the act states one can’t be fired…….nothing about pay. The company hires a temp, employee comes back…..temp goes away. Where’s the cost? It’s factored as sick leave for the most part…….and even that varies from company to company…………

Our Debt Matters

August 12th, 2011
11:48 am

Split the country down the middle. Put the liberal socialists on one side and the conservative capitalists on the other and let each side run things exactly the way they want to.In a few years we could clearly see which is working the best.
East Germany for the liberal socialists and West Germany for the capitalists.
Please, please place Georgia on the capitalist side.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:49 am

Good Tommy.

Most cons surrendered because this is President Obama’s house.

kyle wingnut has a blog for you welchers.

bud,

The President will compromise.

I guess living in la la land is a fact free place to live.

Normal

August 12th, 2011
11:49 am

USinUK

August 12th, 2011
11:50 am

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
11:50 am

“Dave R., I’m sure if one of the candidates had said yes, he or she would take that deal, the moderator would have asked that candidate for more detail.”

Oh, you’re SURE, Jay? Bringing out that precognitive part of your brain again? It was a red herring question, Jay, plain and simple. It is about as intellectually valid as Santorum wanting criminal charges against abortion doctors or claiming that “one assault is enough” when forcing a woman to carry to term a fetus from a rape or incesst.

“The thing is, you know this is foolishness on their part and bad for the country’s future, but you can’t bring yourself to publicly acknowledge it. And as long as people like you refuse to take them to task for it, choosing party loyalty over rationality, they’ll keep doing it.”

Oh, so now you know what I know? Did you also know that the Patriots were going to blow out the Jaguars last night with third-stringers? Who’s going to be in the Super Bowl this year, Jay? I want to get my bet in early.

Yeah, I want rationality, but what you call rational and what I call rational are two different things. Is the premise of a 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenues a good starting point? On the surface, yes. But in the national debate format where every word you say will be scrutinized by your fellow candidates and a liberal media for months to come? Nope. Not gonna give that silly question the satisfaction of an answer.

Oh, and final point on this: The left barks at the moon when even $2 trillion in cuts are mentioned. What do you think they’d do this morning if someone advocated $10 trillion (’cause you know they’d be spinning it that way)? You eat the elephant one bite at a time, Jay. It’s taken 30 years to accumulate this debt. It will take 20-30 more to reduce it to manageable levels.

USinUK

August 12th, 2011
11:51 am

Normal – cheesy kitteh grits!

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:52 am

“Split the country down the middle.”

Collapsing like the USSR is not a option.

Act like an American with personal responsibility and say no on welching on our debt.

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:53 am

This is Obama’s house?

Was that another drive-by typing?

Dorothy

August 12th, 2011
11:53 am

I never hear you say anything good about democrats. It’s always harping on how bad the republicans are. So, is the point you are trying to make that we should vote democrat because they are not republican? Well, that did work for Obama the last time. Perhaps it will work for him the next time. Sad thing for Americans that all we have to choose from is the lesser of two evils.

Jefferson

August 12th, 2011
11:55 am

The are all full of crap

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:55 am

No Tommy.

I am still here to school you.

What do you want to know about American politics?

Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k

August 12th, 2011
11:56 am

To the lying cyber-stalker who doesn’t know the rules of the Senate, a filibuster can be used for non-budgetary bills, but can be passed through reconciliation of a simple majority if it is a budget bill.

The mantra that the GOP blocked budgets with a filibuster (or could have) is completely and totally false.

The Dems squandered any chance at claiming any fiscal responsibility by never producing a budget bill and passing it through reconciliation for coming up on 900 days.

No spin. FACT.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
11:56 am

And Davey deflects and ducks

jm

August 12th, 2011
11:56 am

Too bad Obama wasn’t on that stage. I’m guessing he’d turn it down too.

Tommy Maddox

August 12th, 2011
11:56 am

I like the part about cons. It has such a ring to it.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:57 am

Dave R: You eat the elephant one bite at a time, Jay

Exactly. You have to take an approach that isn’t ridiculous. I would walk away from such a deal too, but mostly because it cuts too damn much – unless it’s more like 100 billion in cuts and 10 billion in loophole closing, that is more manageable, and a smaller bite as you said.

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:57 am

Dorothy,

I guess you have not been paying attention.

The dems do not want to default and they do not want cuts on programs that Americans paid for all their working lives.

Get informed Dorothy.

jm

August 12th, 2011
11:58 am

Jay, were you a member of Huffle Puff at Hogwarts?

Relax. Its politics. remember, the great one was going to close guantanamo, end iraq immediately, stop secret surveillance, make everyone get along, save the world, and all before lunchtime of the first day of his first term.

Grandstanding is nothing new in politics.

Adam

August 12th, 2011
11:58 am

jm: Too bad Obama wasn’t on that stage. I’m guessing he’d turn it down too.

Yeah, because it would cut too much (assuming 10T to 1T)

getalife

August 12th, 2011
11:59 am

Thank you Tommy.

cons is short for conservatism.

Anything else that I can help you with?

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 12th, 2011
12:00 pm

Jay can I call Dave the “lying losing cyber-stupid child” repeatedly since the child continues with the “lying cyber-stalker” foolishness?

Why Dave, you think that the filibuster is the only way to stop a bill?

Your spin is not FACT no matter how delusional you may be.

md

August 12th, 2011
12:01 pm

“The dems do not want to default and they do not want cuts on programs that Americans paid for all their working lives.”

There are only 2 programs that fit that description…….all the others…..not.