The 1st one is funny and sad at the same time, raising taxes will not solve this problem. The wealthy or should I say top 5% of this country already pay the majority of taxes in this country. The left though wish to strip them more and then they wonder why all the jobs are being moved overseas and unemployment is so high.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The bond rating will be lowered because the politicians refuse to deal with the massive debt problem that they have created. The country can't continue on it's present course or in a very few years there will be a huge economic collapse in this country. All the people whining about the cuts that will have to be made to entitlements in order to keep them viable will be shocked when they go broke and everyone will be left with nothing. As usual the politicians are worried more about getting re-elected than they are about what's best for the country.
When a cut is not a cut By Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) - 08/01/11 12:15 PM ET
One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.
No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.
The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other. In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.
A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year's spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.
We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.
In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
As the U.S. Congress came to an agreement on a budget that purportedly would avoid the nation's first-ever default, talk-radio host Michael Savage warned his audience not to listen to voices on the left declaring it a victory for the tea party.
"If the left is telling you it's a victory for the tea party, then you know it's a lie," he said to his "Savage Nation" listeners.
Freshman Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who was elected by the tea party movement, has pointed out that while the congressional deal touts a "cut" of $2.1 trillion, the best-case scenario would result in an additional $7 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.
"You're being hoodwinked again," Savage said.
He said today's politicians need to learn lessons from history to understand what Obama is doing, asserting that the term "Leninist" better describes the president and his policies than "Marxist."
"Lenin thought that a nation could only grow more prosperous when a nation is controlled by a vanguard and elite – a people who know better than you what to do with your property," he explained. "The Leninist elite would lead people to a world free of pain and poverty. There would be no more haves and have-nots or private property. Just boundless prosperity. All a nation had to do was transfer its entire wealth to Lenin's vanguard."
But the Leninist vision had consequences, Savage noted, aside from the well-documented horrors of Soviet tyranny.
"America's rich will be poorer, America's poor will be poorer, America's middle class will be wiped out," Savage said. "But America's government will be more powerful than ever, as will the elected officials and their corrupt bureaucrats.".......................>>>>..................>>>>................Read more: Savage: America has been 'hoodwinked' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=329089#ixzz1TxyZR27V
I didn't know Michael Savage was still around or on the radio.... Anyways, like 20 years ago when he was remotly relevant he's completly bonkers. Boehner is saying he got 98% of what he wanted and more republicans voted for this bill than democrats. To say this is anything but a victor for the Tea party is dillusional. By the way, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. OF course this isn't 100% of what the teaparty wants but they drove the final outcome of this legislation.
Logged
