IOW, what were they charged to do? They were charged to CUT SPENDING. So, why did the Democrats block everything because they insisted on getting tax hikes? That's something enirely different. The charge of their stated task was to CUT SPENDING. This is clearly on the backs of Obama and the Democrats. Here's why: our problem is NOT that we pay too little in taxes. OUR problem is that we SPEND way too much. We have a SPENDING PROBLEM. And....as long as the Democrats continue to try and move the goalposts.....delay the inevitable spending cuts by going after yet another small group of people for more money, where they can continue the spending.........then we continue to put off the inevitable; which is To Cut Spending! That's equivalent to placing a small bandaid on a huge problem and expecting it to work. Let's face it folks: TAX CUTS ARE GOING TO HURT. They are going to Hurt all of us. I'm on Medicare, for instance, and I fully expect to lose some benefits and coverages. I'd much rather NOT have been forced into this gov't program....but it's too late for me now; my other choices have been taken away from me already. It's NOT too late for those of you who are younger. You should fight government intervention in your healthcare with all you can muster. YOU still have time; where I do not. How has our federal gov't gotten so far out-of-control? By insisting that more and more people be placed under Medicaid, for instance. By insisting that more and more people be placed on food stamps, welfare, and Unemployment benefits continued to be raised with no end in sight. Paying people to sit at home and not work; that's what we're doing now. Are there some who simply cannot get a job and who have been looking...and hard? Yes. But there are also lots who as long as the gov't is subsidizing them to this extent, are satisfied to stay home and not even try anymore. Enough is enough. CUT THE SPENDING. IT HAS TO BE DONE.....if we are to EVER get our country back.
Actually they were charged with adding 2 trillion to the budget, BY WHATEVER MEANS. But the right wing has to protect their base, the rich.
The rich? The rich aren't taking more of the benefits paid out than the poor are. The rich aren't on Medicaid or Welfare or Food Stamps, or Unemployment benefits. Right?
But what did they cut? What were they willing to cut? Are you saying the Dems don't think we have a spending problems--but a lack of taxes problem? So how many "rich" do you think there are...and how much more people can they subsidize? Got any idea?
no the rich consume more than they need or their fair share of resources they live in ocean front mansions, use private jets, drive expensive cars etc... no one should be allowed to earn more than they need for a reasonable living at some point as President Obama said some people are making too much money this excess justifies government the power to use force in taxation to redistribute this wealth to those who cannot or do not want to earn more than they need for a reasonable living of which some goes to pay for welfare, medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment.
"Greed is good." -Gordon Gekko Mr. Gekko is right. For the most part, greed is good. Therefore, government must limit taxation, but be efficient in how we tax. However, exorbitant wealth redistribution isn't necessary.
Could you substantiate that please? Everything I have read says that they were there to find $2.2 billion in cuts for 2013. I have seen nothing saying they were there to increase taxes. That was the issue which led to this in the first pace in the debt default crisis. I understood Owebama went with this committee business because of that stalemate, that he got congress to go along with an increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for a promise to find $2.2 billion in cuts by this means. As I understood it at the time this committee was to take the tax increase issue off the table... So who is lying?
Excellent points. It would appear that the failure of the super committee to provide the cuts is automatically causing cuts to be put in place. I would certainly think that if you wanted spending to be cut, the outcome here is favorable.
