A future discussion between Obama and Pope Francis
by Carder
Topics like O-Care’s contraception mandate and infanticide will, I take it, be discreetly avoided….
Meanwhile, who’s listening to Obama’s sermons on sharing the wealth and remaining unmoved by them unless/until they know the Pope would like to see a bit more wealth-sharing too? My hunch is that people’s views of redistribution are similar to their views of contraception: They may admire the Vatican’s position as nobly motivated but ultimately they have to protect themselves.
~ Allahpundit speculating on the possible topics of conversation between Pope Francis and President Obama should they meet in the future, Hot Air, January 14
[Photo Credit: Social News Daily]
Jan.15, 2014 6:00 am |
Obama, The Church |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Obama needs another selfy for his collection with heads of state. Maybe he could snap one at a papal mass or something.
Pope Francis is currently flying high in the press… The president just wants a photo-op with a world leader for domestic political consumption. He needs to build something to shore up his stumbling agenda. Obama will probably discard 99% of what might get said anyway. So it really does not matter very much what they may say.
I hope the Pope fares better for any encounter.
I would propose that Pope Francis starts by reviewing the major principles of what it means to be a father. After Os “informative” talk about what he expects from his daughters relative to sexuality, this topic is a must! Making the discussion very personal to Os fatherhood will leave a stronger impression on him than any discussion regarding national or global-level concerns.
But of course Pope Francis will want to discuss national or global-level issues. For the second topic on the agenda, thus may I propose the degradation of women and our humanity through an ongoing open season on the preborns. I don’t think that while discussing abortion, infanticide will be discreetly avoided. One cannot discuss one w/o the other. Hey for a stronger impact, may Pope Francis bring up the infanticide of black babies…
Hi Tommy R,
If the Glorious Leader takes another selfie, let’s hope he can at least be conducting himself with some decorum and not acting like a bored schoolchild in a church pew.
Hi Thomas R,
I would think a good father doesn’t publicly humiliate his children’s mother by openly flirting with an attractive woman, and ultimately his children as well, in front of the entire world.
Hi Mary:
Can you blame the guy for flirting with a Danish gal? Michelle has not much to offer and it seems that O gravitates toward white women nowadays. Do you think she put ’em out on the White House couch when they returned to the States?
http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/12/11/president-obama-flirting-helle-thorning-schmidt-michelle-obama-pic/
Hi Thomas R,
I’m very fond of you but I’m afraid we will part company on this subject.
Yes indeed I do blame him. He is a married man, a father, and the President of the United States. To suggest his outrageous behavior is somehow Michelle’s fault doesn’t wash with me, anymore than Bill’s disgusting behavior can be blamed on Hillary. I am not fond of either woman, but that’s irrelevant. Their husbands and their husbands alone are responsible for their actions.
As much as I love and respect my brother, nothing starts a heated discussion between him and me than how he “understands” Bill Clinton’s behavior while in the White House.
It never seems to occur to anyone that maybe Barack and Bill aren’t exactly prizes either.
I wouldn’t blame Michelle at all if she was outraged. What woman wouldn’t be?
Mary by now you would have figured out my writing style. I’m the guy who writes in morse code :) I’m just making fun of the way O is acting lately around other women. Personally I think their marriage will meet the fate of Hillary and Bill’s.
Meanwhile, who’s listening to Obama’s sermons on sharing the wealth and remaining unmoved by them unless/until they know the Pope would like to see a bit more wealth-sharing too?
Hmm. I don’t have much wealth to share, but I am proud to say that I contributed to my local YMCA’s gift drive for the Salvation Army. The membership of this Y consists mostly of moderate income people like myself, but we were able to contribute over 200 gifts this past Christmas.
I really hope Pope Francis will put Barky on the spot about his abortophilia, even though it will do little good.
Hi Thomas R,
Hard to tell on the Internet.
Thank you for the clarification. :)
People think those pics of Obama flirting with that woman and Michelle obviously getting hurt and offended are “funny” and “cute”, but I don’t think they are at all. Have none of those people who think it’s “funny” ever been cheated on? It’s not very “funny”, it’s disrespectful to be too flirty especially with your wife sitting right there. Of course I’m making assumptions based on the pics, who knows what really went on or the story there, but I don’t think Michelle looked happy and I can’t blame her.
If Pope Francis talks to Obama I think Thomas is right, he should talk to him about what fatherhood means and maybe gently mention that using your little daughters to talk about how great abortion is, that’s pretty nasty.
Jack. Michelle and Barack are public figures and therefore are open to public scrutiny for anything under the sun. Courts have ruled time and time again that public figures cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy.
Thank you for the acknowledgement in the 2nd paraghraph. :)
I didn’t say anything about their privacy rights. I just feel bad for Michelle. I actually kinda like Michelle, not too fond of her husband in many ways but she’s all right. And I think it’s rude to be too close or flirty to other men/women in front of your spouse. My ex was a huge flirt, I always found it disrespectful. I can’t imagine being a public figure and having stuff like that broadcast everywhere.
I think the point here is that Obama is the President, and as such should conduct himself with decorum. Publicly humiliating his wife and acting like a silly schoolboy at a solemn occasion with the entire world watching is a national embarrassment. That goes for those other two “leaders” as well.
I would be no less irate if my husband or one of my adult children conducted themselves the same way.
Hi Mary,
I totally agree with you. The presidency was designed as half figurehead, half executive-in-chief. We know of course about Obama’s failure as a domestic leader, having no real economic experience.
And his total cluelessness on matters of foreign policy and the military make him a dismal commander-in-chief as well. While other boys grew up watching old movies about WWII, he was lounging about with his choom gang. How else can you explain him saying “corpseman” three times in one speech? Or having his hands over his crotch rather than his heart during the National Anthem?
Clinton has been called a fratboy, The only thing I have against Michelle is her saying the election of her husband, a man-child from the beaches of Hawaii, finally makes her proud of her country.
Hey now are we bashing on former drug users Hans? ;)
Only the ones who still have their heads in the clouds., Cough. Cough.
You seem to have your feet firmly planted on the ground, Jack.
My guess is the Pope is going to give Obama a nice hug and say “great job keeping the Mormon out of the White House!”
The problem is that those that voted for O did not pay attention to his performance in the Illinois Senate. People voted for “hope and change.” Really? Democrats on average don’t do their homework before they go to the voting booth. Same thing with Clinton who I truly think was elected because he played the saxophone on Arsenio. Dems in general are low-info voters who buy into the rhetoric and superficial appearance but nothing more.
Hi Ex: If you guys have your way the next President will be the Benghazi Butcher.
Yes, Thomas. I think conservatives vote mostly with their head, and liberals with their heart. And we know what it says in Jeremiah about the heart being deceitful above all things.
Agreed Hans.
But no, Hillary isn’t a butcher – except by proxy in her indifference to “the village” slaughtering the soon to be born.
Actually, indifference is her watchword. As in “What difference at this point does it make?” ken’s old avatar of Alfred E. Newman should be on her election poster with the caption: “What, me worry?”
Hi Thomas R,
I view the American electorate as the rich widow taken in by the smooth talking con man. Then suddenly he and her money are gone.
Like her, millions of Americans were taken in by superficiality, a charming smile and charisma, an empty suit. Sadly a story as old as the human race.
Mindless chanting, meaningless rhetoric, and elevating a Chicago thug to the status of some kind of Messiah. Like the rich widow, the American people couldn’t tell you what they really knew about this guy or why they were so mesmerized by this unknown who suddenly came into their lives. It was just him.
What tyrant on this planet wouldn’t love to have the worshipful media Obama has been blessed with?
I saw these red flags from the deepest depths of hell back in 2008.
Hi Thomas R,
But..but..but…didn’t Hillary say Benghazi was the result of a video? I mean, you saw what they did to that poor schmuck who made it. What more proof could you need??
Hillary will be a fine next President. If the GOP had some compelling options, it would be worth a look – but the tea party people are certifiably crazy – you’ve got Christie who kills old people on bridges. Quite a mess in the GOP these days. Another bad election or two and they might get the memo for how to move forward. So far, still clueless.
A meeting of Pope Francis with Mr. Obama will be interesting to watch. I can’t predict what will happen… probably nothing much, which the media will spin into a resounding papal endorsement for every liberal thing.
I loved the adroit way that Pope Benedict handled his visit with Nancy Pelosi! Denied her a photo-op, and issued an immediate press release about their private conversation before the media had a chance to guess at it!
The tea party people are the only ones left standing with any moral high ground. In a town of big-business and back-room deals making payola to cronies of both political parties. The tea party is the only group of people who would realistically cut government spending now instead of more years of smoke and mirrors-kick the can down the road-voodoo projected budgets that spend now on the backs of cutbacks to our children’s future. Own it Ex-RINO.
I have said this before: the Dreams From My Father liar whose father did not even raise him and the It Takes a Village Liar who raised her daughter immune to the “village” are hypocrites that the American electorate was fooled by from day one. Hillary played a major role in the Benghazi tragedy and than like all democrats do, backtracked/lied and than suddenly “retired.” Hillary never had the good of the country at heart. Too bad Ex is so impressed by this caricature of decency and honesty. She is an opportunist. I think that the only thing that can be said about her time as the Secretary of State, is that she traveled the world at our expense.
I hope the Pope talks to Obama about the sanctity of human life and urges the US to get involved in pushing for religious freedom in countries where people are persecuted and killed for their religion.
Hi Thomas R,
If her name was Hillary Rodham Schultz would she be where she is today?
truth -
The tea party wouldn’t leave a country at all for our kid’s – they’d slash education, investment, science, research – all the things that have led America to being a great country. If the tea party ran things, we’d be surpassed by a heck of a lot of countries. One of the greatest things for the long term viability of this country is that the ideals of the tea party have been pretty well rejected.
Thomas -
But let’s by honest Thomas – you have some of the most biased colored glasses on this entire site. I mean, there’s a lot of people that lean right, but you do so in a manner that sets all logic aside.
I don’t love Hillary – let me be straight on that. But let me also be straight on the fact that I’d take her as President a million times over Rand Paul, Scott Walker or Paul Ryan.
Heck, last time we had a Clinton in the White House, we had a balanced budget!
Hey I know a CPD Captain by that fine name :)
I hear you though. She was the first lady and that got her in many places ordinary folk can’t get to. I think her time in that “role” got into her head.
I think everyone who wants to be a politician should be jailed. We should pick representatives by lottery.
I call it the way it is Ex. You can’t dispute the fallacies and dishonesty behind the two “nonfiction” books those two authored. Hillary’s response on the Benghazi tragedy speaks for itself. And honestly do you think that Hillary would build the type of across the isle consensus needed for a balanced budget – I seriously doubt it.
I don’t see any politicians that could build consensus towards a balanced budget (assuming we need a balanced budget – heck, Dick Cheaney doesn’t even thing we need one). Hillary would have a better shot at thought than a tea party member. It is darn near impossible to balance the budget without raising revenue – you’d need to essentially cut Social Security or Medicare – or massively hack military spending - a bunch of things that shouldn’t be done.
No Jack, We need voters that are informed. Look up Hans’ comment. He said it best.
I really clearly was kidding Thomas.
And you guys think “anything left of extreme right” is uninformed, so :)
If y’all stopped implying that the only reason people tend left is because they are either stupid or evil, I would be much obliged.
I am not far right Ex and Jack but closer to it each year thanks to democratic politics ruining this great nation.
Hi Lring,
An important rule. Look at the personality you are dealing with. This would be a huge waste of time and energy on the Pope’s part. Obama would never be moved in the least by anything the Pope tells him. At best, he would have only seething contempt for His Holiness.
No Jack, I at least consider most on the Left to be naive, not evil.
And I believe ts was right on the money. The Republicans may well go the way of the Whigs, who they muiscled out with the abolitionist movement. Now the Tea Party may have the monopoly of being fiscally sane.
Never mind EGOP’s accusation of slashing the budget. That’s what his ilk has claimed about the GOP for years for merely wanting to slow the increase in spending. They’ve bullied them into being Democrat Lite. A pox on both their houses if they continue with this.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=374518
It would be amazing if our politicians had the hearts of public servants and could leave all the power grabbing, finger pointing, and party allegiance crap behind. Something to pray for, I guess.
If it’s naive to desire that no one die because they don’t have enough money for treatment and that families not be ripped apart for seeking a better life in the US, color me naive.
You know Jack, the definition of extremism is relative. You can’t call out us Republicans unless you examine your own extreme left leaning. I am a Republican but willing to consider things that are for the greater good of our great nation. Lately though with such individuals as perpetually lying O and Hillary before she “retired” its hard to accomplish. These two are major flaws of the democratic party. There is no honor coming from the White House these days. Just examine that a little closer and you will agree.
“If it’s naive to desire that no one die because they don’t have enough money for treatment and that families not be ripped apart for seeking a better life in the US, color me naive. ”
Lrning I would like this comment a million times if I could. :)
“You know Jack, the definition of extremism is relative. You can’t call out us Republicans unless you examine your own extreme left leaning.”
I’m not even an extreme leftist, remotely. If you put me next to actual Dems I look quite conservative. I just look extreme left next to some of you on this website lol. I actually have quite a few conservative views. The most extreme leftist view I have is that I think killing animals is awful and should be banned. :)
And one of these days, someone will acknowledge what I’ve said about seven million times, and realize that I don’t care for our current executive branch, and that I’m not a Democrat.
“…and that I’m not a Democrat.”
Thank you Jack. :)
Hans -
I’d be VERY interested to see a budget that balances the budget right away. The tea party talks a cute little game, but they do so with very small percentages of the budget. Has a tea party person come out saying that in 2015, we should massively slash defense, medicare, medicaid, or social security? No – they haven’t (at least sane ones haven’t) – and without a slashing, or raising revenue, the budget isn’t going to be balanced.
Heck, did you ever look at how many years it took Ryan’s plan to actually balance the budget without raising taxes?
Again – the tea party talks a cute little game – but there’s a reason that they’ve been largely rejected – and that’s because if they actually controlled things, it would gut the innovation in this country so deeply that we’d quickly move out of being a world power.
Though maybe that is what the tea party wants…
I cannot believe the vitriol spewed at the Tea Party. Just what is there to demonize about it? Critics have to make things up about it because there’s nothing objectionable.
It is claimed they are extreme right-wing on social and religious issues, though they hardly touch on them. They pretend they are gun-toting racists, yet the one photo used to prove this was ironically cropped so as not to show the individual was a black Lyndon LaRouche (a far-out Democrat) supporter.
The only thing the Tea Party wants is for us to be serious about fiscal restraint instead of continuing a knee-jerk raising of taxes, spending, and debt. Most politicians have given this philosophy lip service all along.
Is it so terrible to try to avoid the day when this bubble will necessarily burst?
THe RINO’s the Ex-RINOs and the Liberals and the Left borrow money that the next generation will have to pay back so they can vote one another welfare and have a comfortable life talking about how much their generation cares about people. It is sickening. They really are conceited.
If it’s naive to desire that no one die because they don’t have enough money for treatment and that families not be ripped apart for seeking a better life in the US, color me naive.
Lrning snd Jack,
The first half of that statement elicits an eye roll fom me, and the second a shake of the head.
We are are a great nation that does not tolerate people dropping dead when we know they need help. It seems this accusation always surfaces when conservatives are in charge or merely speaking up.
During the Reagan Adminsistration they said we had a homeless epidemic of millions, with many thousands “dying” in the streets. That hushed up when Clinton came in, and I tell you there were no great policy changes.
There are always those who fall through the cracks, mostly because we don’t know about them, and they don’t know the many ways they can get help. If you think the Government can solve all problems, just look at all the stories of people languishing in hospital hallways in Britain.
And I’m sorry to sound cruel, but just who is responsible for ripping families apart? If they abondon their families without being sure they will be reunited, that is their gamble. Why are we obligated to take them, and all the family they should so desire, in?
I’m all for hospitality, not presumptive extortion.
Hans –
And why such hatred towards Obama? Come on man – the tea party gets its label because of the programs they attack, and because they are more divisive than governing. They have a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality that just doesn’t jive well in an era that is tired with people drawing lines in the sand.
truth
There is simply more rhetoric to your statement than truth:
– right wingers – “we want to balance the budget, but only if we don’t touch taxes and don’t touch the military. We want to balance the budget by slashing programs such as social security, medicare, and mediaid.
– left wingers – “we want to balance the budget, but only if we can preserve programs such as medicare, and if we can properly fund things like education. We want to balance the budget by raising taxes and balancing revenue with spending.
So in the first case, you have people who put balancing the budget behind holding the line on taxes. In the second case, you have people who put social programs ahead of balancing the budget.
In BOTH cases, there is a desire to balance the budget. In BOTH cases, parties have objectives before a balanced budget.
Truth – you’ve lived through one balanced budget at the federal level in your lifetime – and you know who was the President. Now, you might say taxes were too high, and you would have a bit of a point – but there was still a balanced budget.
You yourself rail and yell about passing debt and how bad it is- so let me ask you this – simple yes or no question – would you repeal all the tax cuts in the Bush/Obama years if it would balance the budget immediately for next year. Yes or no?
Ex-GOP,
I can think of no more a divisive, “my way or the highway” president than Obama. From the very first meeting he had when he petulantly reminded the opposition that “I won” to threatening this week to use his pen and phone to strongarm his way (He already has eclipsed his predecessors in executive orders.) he has never shown any interest in compromise.
Why must you exaggerate about “slashing” spending? I don’t accuse you of wanting to double taxes. But taxes and spending have grown in fits and starts for decades, bringing us to the brink.
We do not demand a starvation diet. Just some moderation. And you must be able to see that we have not tried modest cutbacks nearly as much as socking it to the taxpayer.
would you repeal all the tax cuts in the Bush/Obama years if it would balance the budget immediately for next year. Yes or no?
Ex-RINO, what do you mean ‘properly’ fund education? Isn’t ‘properly’ funded education is supposed to be funded and administered at the state and local levels anyway?
Ex-RINO, Some modest cutbacks would go a long way over time. Remember how Obama and the MSM were saying that the modest sequester cutbacks would cripple the government and the economy? They try and scare people away from any cuts at all. We don’t have to balance the budge in the first year. We could start by repealing Obamacare. I wonder what kind of smoke and mirrors they will come up with on the new CBO scoring this year in order to not expose the lie about it not adding a dime to the deficit. They are getting ready to do an insurance company bailout soon because Obamacare is costing so much more then projected. I can hardly wait to see how you spin it.
We could also cut back on some of the recent growth of unelected bureaucracy like all the czars and their appointed staff etc. Another small step could be to simplify the tax code and getting rid of a lot of the IRS. We could cut back on welfare for illegal aliens. There is a lot of room for cutbacks on the federal level if you are willing to trim the size of it back to the what it is constitutionally intended to be.
Well, dems demonize the Tea Party mainly because they despise Sarah. Dems, instead, elevate a self-serving and opportunistic Hillary who dismissed lives lost in the Benghazi tragedy.
I said this before and will say it again – Ex: whatever your personal feelings about the Tea Party, Sarah has more genuineness/decency/honor than O and Hillary combined and their ilk thrown in will ever display.
The Tea Party cares for the people and not the party line. No one can dispute that. Tea Party is about the roots of our great nation and not the false ideals that dems aspire to.
Democrats will sacrifice anyone standing in their way, regardless of the fiduciary responsibility to their nation and its citizenry.
I just caught comments reflecting the belief that people die in the US because of lack of access to healthcare. I am so glad that we had Hans to clarify this smearing of blood on Republican hands.
“During the Reagan Adminsistration they said we had a homeless epidemic of millions, with many thousands “dying” in the streets. That hushed up when Clinton came in, and I tell you there were no great policy changes.”
Yes Hans! but no democrat will want to acknowledge that more than 50 percent of these millions were on the streets due to the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the late 1960s and that this move to community-based care was initially a flop. That is the reason we had and still have so many homeless, majority of whom btw REFUSE ANY TYPE OF ASSISTANCE .
Studies from the late 1980s indicated that one-third to one-half of homeless people had severe psychiatric disorders, often co-occurring with substance abuse. Was it about the time Clinton inhabitated the White House, ha? Clinton DID NOT enact any policies that would get these deinstitutionalized mentally ill off the streets and into any transitional services, did he! Is the almighty O doing anything about this homelessness issue. Today’s estimate of the deinstitutionalized mentally ill on the streets is still very high.
Blaming Republicans is a wrong way street here.
It never ceases to amaze me how much trouble people have reading what is actually written and instead read whatever they want into the conversation.
“if you think government can solve all problems”…”blaming Republicans”… Nope.
Working back through a few posts here…
Hans – your 12:07 post. So you claim Obama has a bad rap for being divisive – but you don’t see how the tea party would have a similar rap? You didn’t say a think about the tea party and their perception – just tried to lump Obama in the same sort of category, which you see as negative – so I’m assuming you understand how that is a negative for the tea party.
Regarding your last two statements – the rhetoric doesn’t match the facts. The vast majority of Americans pay way less taxes now than we did under Reagan and Clinton. And while spending has grown, take a look at the areas it has grown in – for instance, military spending has doubled since 2000. Social Security payment are roughly double than what they were in 2000. So what is the tea party solution – they talk about a balanced budget – can you do it without massive cuts to those two areas?
truth -
There is roughly $100 billion a year of education spending at the federal level.
Regardless – please answer my question (if you answered, I missed it) - You yourself rail and yell about passing debt and how bad it is- so let me ask you this – simple yes or no question – would you repeal all the tax cuts in the Bush/Obama years if it would balance the budget immediately for next year. Yes or no?
truth
If you repeal Obamacare, you’ve added $109 billion to the deficit.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-repealing-obamacare-adds-to-deficit/
Get rid of the IRS? Who do you recommend audit and collect taxes?
Welfare for illegal immigrants? You’ve knocked off a massively small chunk compared to the deficit. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_States
When you talk about stopping government for growing beyond what it should be, what sort of cuts are you talking about to the following programs – Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Medicare, Military
Thomas -
Is Sarah Palin even around these days? The Dems don’t like the tea party because they don’t feel their policies would be good for America. It isn’t about any one individual. Maybe a bit on the Kochs – the tea party is a pretty darn nice special interest group for them – but to tie it to Sarah Palin is a stretch.
I’m interested in your statement regarding the Tea Party caring about people, and that is beyond dispute. Rand Paul and the tea party proposed massive cuts to food programs – the head of Bread for the World (link below) is directly saying that those cuts are hurting people – not helping people. As somebody who works with feeding the poor and addressing those needs, he seems to be a smart guy – do you disagree with him? How is cutting food programs a benefit to the poor?
http://religionandpolitics.org/2012/06/04/churches-need-strong-federal-programs-to-help-the-vulnerable/
People do die because of lack of healthcare – is this a dispute?
If you don’t think it’s true, why do people get preventative care?
You might argue that nobody in an emergency situation gets turned away from help – that would be true – but if somebody doesn’t have insurance, therefore doesn’t have money to get breast cancer screenings – and finds out way too late that they have cancer, and they die – I don’t think we should feel good about ourselves if an ambulance shows up to rush them to the hospital to die. People die because they don’t have access to healthcare. How many is tough to pin down, but people die.
Ex-RINO asked , “would you repeal all the tax cuts in the Bush/Obama years if it would balance the budget immediately for next year.”
No, because your question is absurd. We have a 17 trillion dollar deficit along with 128 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. The entire GDP of the US in a year isn’t even enough to wipe out the deficit. No amount of tax increase could keep up with government annual debt unless we cut back on the size of government. That is the only way out. It is not rocket science.
Hey, did you see Obama’s presser on the NSA today. He is creating a new government office and appointing a privacy czar to oversee it. He says he has always been concerned that the government could be invading on peoples privacy so he going to take all the information that the NSA collects on people and give it to someone outside of government to hold onto. You couldn’t make this stuff up. What a loon.
In hindsight Edward Snowden is looking like a patriot. US citizens would never have found out and nobody in our government would even be looking at this if it weren’t for him.
truth -
Maybe you misunderstood my question – I didn’t say wipe out the entire deficit – the budget it a year to year thing. The projected deficit for 2014 is about $744 billion – I’m not saying to wipe out the entire federal deficit – just balance the budget.
Your main statement though on it is factually untrue – you could tax your way out of it – it might not be wise - but it is equally unwise to do it only through spending cuts.
So is your answer still no?
You must acknowledge the unfunded liability as real debt and part of the deficit cause the interest on it alone is growing so fast it will overtake any amount of taxation.
truth – Again, that’s fundamentally untrue. If you balanced the budget, debt payments are part of that – so those would be paid down and the interest would not overcome it.
So I’m sensing that you believe not raising taxes is more important than balancing the budget.
Which puts you on par with a progressive that believes that balancing the budget is secondary to issues they care about.
Do you disagree?
Ex-GOP,
Who expects to balance the budget right away with massive cuts? We didn’t get here by doubling spending every year. We’re nit proposing to slash spending in half every year.
One proposal by Connie Mack from Florida was a 1% cut for each of several years, Like gently pulling on the reins, not choking the horse! We need some kind of a little show of boundaries, restraint, efficiency.
We need to show businesses we are as serious with government as they are with running their companies.
“truth – Again, that’s fundamentally untrue. If you balanced the budget, debt payments are part of that – so those would be paid down and the interest would not overcome it.”
A single years balanced budget does not add to the debt and is a good thing. But you need to understand that we have government secured debt and unfunded liabilities besides that and and the only way to change the debt trajectory is to shrink the size of government. I liked the sequester and I would have no problem with across the board cuts like the sequester and with shrinking the size of the federal government as I outlined above. I would not be for raising taxes cause it is obvious to me that individual Americans can do more for our ‘social security’ with a thousand dollars they earn by keeping it then the government bureaucrats do by taking it away. The government has an irrefutable track record of wasteful incompetence and flat out thievery.
Hans – The assessment of Mack’s plan is that over a 10 year period, Mack’s plan would cut $211 billion off of Medicare, $1.124 trillion from Social Security, and $2.89 trillion in defense.
You find that acceptable? That’s interesting.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/oct/24/bill-nelson/bill-nelson-says-connie-macks-penny-plan-would-lea/
Thanks truth -
Then I find your statements about being worried about debt on children’s to be utter BS. You yourself have said, quite clearly, that raising taxes is off limits to you – so you are no different than an uncompromising liberal is who is okay free spending their way in a deficit.
There are two sides to a federal budget. Inlays and Outlays. If a person is only willing to deal with one and not the other, than that is what is most important to them – not balancing the budget – not solving a deficit issue.
Ex,
And are you saying that it’s impossible to find 1% fraud and waste in the budget per year? Really? And who says it has to be in place for an entire ten year period?
Economies begin to roll with confidence and hope. We have had none for six years, hence the non-recovery recovery. What company is looking to expand when they can’t afford the employess they have?
Ex-RINO, You are the one who wants government to spend more than they have because it makes you feel altruistic to live high today on ‘other’ peoples money and then some. Spending even more than you can extort from people today and leaving the burden for future generations. I want none of that. My solution doesn’t involve giving in to extortion from crooks like you and the politicians who make you feel good about yourself by accusing the people who don’t give you their money of wanting to hurt others. You are scum and God willing the end of your corruption will come soon when a majority of people come realize you are nothing more than a snake oil salesman and the party with a rattlesnake on their flag bites you back.
“If you repeal Obamacare, you’ve added $109 billion to the deficit.”
Ex-RINO, That is a projection over the first 10 years…lets just see how we are doing so far because of changes to those projections. Did it take into account Obama repealing the individual and the employer mandates for 2014? Did the CBO estimate take into account the bailout of the insurance companies on the Obamacare exchange? They losing tens of billions of dolars in 2014 because the insurance pools and enrollment and the CBO projections did not include any bailouts but the government bailouts of the insurance companies on the Exchanges will happen in 2014. I can’t believe how bold you are in your lies. You get caught in lie after lie but you just keep putting them out there. Are you seriously still saying that Obamacare reduces the deficit? wtf Do you still also claim you can keep your plan and your doctor if you like your plan and your doctor?
Mary,
The web security experts who testified before congress back in November just testified again and gave congress an update. Their testimony was not reassuring.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3063644305001/expert-hacker-healthcaregov-absolutely-100-insecure/?intcmp=obinsite#sp=show-clips
Hans -
I do not believe there is $2.89 trillion in defense spending fraud, over $1 trillion in social security fraud, or $200 billion in Medicare fraud. There is some – sure – but I’ve never seen an estimate of that sort of fraud.
So are you now saying that isn’t acceptable – those sort of cuts?
Also – the recovery could have been stronger with stronger stimulus – but if you look at the GDP per year, things were definitely reversed. The GDP started to crash down in 2006 – decreased from 2005 to 2006, again in 2007, again in 2008, and way into the negative in 2009. We’ve since had positive numbers with economic growth. The US just keeps shooting itself in the foot with stupid fights like debt ceiling debates, government shutdowns, and sequester cuts – all which have hampered the economy.
truth -
Ha – well, looks like you were either drinking last night or my last posts hit a raw nerve. Thanks for calling me scum.
It is true though – you are no different than a free spending liberal. You see the balance sheet of the US, and put that secondary to your own economy goals – in your case, not raising taxes. You are like a husband that rejects overtime hours at work, yet keeps spending more and more money so his family can’t pay the bills. Spending is one issue – revenue is another. A balanced budget won’t get there without compromise on both ends.
Your first post – you made most of that up – I actually liked the concept of the Bowles-Simpson plan, which had a couple of dollars in cuts for every dollar in revenue. It was a deficit plan that hit EVERYBODY. If deficit reduction is a goal, everyone should work towards that goal.
Again – you got angry, which was weird – this has been a decent conversation – what you said though simply wasn’t true. You are the one drawing lines in the sand and throwing our kids under the future bus. Politics over people is a bad way to go truth.
truth -
You can question the validity of the debt impact of health care reform – that is your right. What you can’t question is the reality, which is, if health care reform was repealed tomorrow, by the rules of PAYGO, congress would have to either raises taxes, or cut spending to pass through a repeal because health care reform helps, not hurts the deficit. Again, you can question the numbers – but that is the reality from a budget perspective and how it would be treated. It is not up for debate.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-repealing-obamacare-adds-to-deficit/
Ex – you truly need to re-read the article you posted about the “alleged” cuts. I take you for a smart fellow but that article you present as exemplifying “cuts” is actually discussing the need to strengthen government programs that feed the poor and in a way lessen the burden on Church groups. There is nothing there from the head of Bread for the World that states the Church programs are to be eliminated or cut. He argues that if government programs are cut, it will only place an undue burden on Church groups as they will have to make up for the difference.
In other words, he wants equal responsibility btw the government and the Church groups. The Tea Party would support this stance.
Thomas -
You are misrepresenting the article and what I said – in no way did I say that church program are to be eliminated or cut – he essentially said that the cuts that Paul was presenting weren’t fair to the poor (when you said, quite clearly, that the tea party is the one group who cares about everybody).
Here is their follow-up press release: http://www.bread.org/media/releases/senate-takes-stand-against-snap-cuts.html
The title and article is saying that by rejecting those cuts, the senate was standing with the poor.
Again – just going back to your statement – I personally believe, looking at tea party suggestions of spending, that it is tough to make the argument that they care for the poor. They want to strengthen the balance sheet of America almost solely on the back of poor people, old people,and the disabled (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and social program spending cuts).
Ex-RINO, your insistence that Obamacare cuts money from the deficit is no more true then your promises about “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan, period”. The only care snake oil salesmen like you have to play is to keep lying. You post without even a modicum of conscience. You claim to think abortion is the murdering of children but you vote for politicians who support peoples right to kill children. You lack principles and the Internet gives you a place where you can keep spreading lies because there are always new people who might read you BS and believe you.
truth –
I didn’t believe there was any gray area in what I said – but I’ll say it again – by the rules of congress and PAYGO (I’m trusting you know what that is, which probably isn’t a safe assumption given your knowlege of these things) – if they tried to repeal tomorrow, they would have to raise taxes or cut spending to do it, because health care reform is a positive, not a negative to the finances of the country.
Say whatever else you want – you can say it 50 times and it still isn’t true.
What also is true is that though you whail and moan, your concern over the debt and dumping it on the future is just words – you’ve shown your real hand, what really concerns you – and it is clear that you’d rather keep taxes low and hold on tight to all money even though it dooms us to higher deficits.
Again – I’ll say it clearly – I suggest attacking the deficit with tax revenue increases, and even greater spending cuts – but a mix.
“I didn’t believe there was any gray area in what I said”
Ex-RINO, that is likely because there is so little gray-matter between your ears. Anybody can frame cost projections using dishonest criteria to get CBO to score things as costing less than they truly do. You would have to have your head in the sand to deny that our government projects ALWAYS ends up costing at least twice what is projected by CBO on them. Give them dishonest projections and you get ‘projected’ cost savings.
Tell me Ex-RINO, did the CBO include our federal government having to spend 10 billion dollars of tax payer money 2014 bailing out insurance companies? Let me answer for you…NO they didn’t.
EX: going back to the article you presented to argue that Rand Paul is such a monster. The definition of fair is what truly matters I would guess. Democrats so much want to treat the SNAP program as a bottomless pit. No restraint and no checks and balances on how it is utilized. Cuts never mean the end of a program. There are many programs at state level and also, those church-based programs you like to cite. The feds under the democratic leadership always respond with pouring more money into a bottomless well. And Rand Paul gets blasted by you for pointing it out. Amazing logic Ex. BTW, I know you don’t like when anyone mentions abuses of any particular program. How can anyone criticize unending support of a program that feeds the poor. We must be monsters. I have a better idea Ex. Volunteer your time in a soup kitchen or the Greater Chicago Food Depository and you will change your tune.
truth -
This isn’t that hard – if an insurance payout was part of the legislation, it got estimated and is part of the CBO score. If it isn’t, it didn’t.
So are you saying that by the rules of PAYGO, if there was a repeal, they wouldn’t have to do raise taxes or cut other spending? Of course not – you know I’m right. You disagree with the score and the CBO work – but it is what it is and it isn’t up for debate – because that is how the law works.
Thomas -
You are making up a character and attacking – not actually making a logic based statement based on what anybody has said. I don’t think anybody wants to treat it as a bottomless pit – but there was a bill that Paul introduced that did hack a lot of money from the program – and that bill was attacked by a lot of people who actually work with the poor.
Again – I’m just using this to contradict what you said earlier.
And again – I stand by my statement - Again – just going back to your statement – I personally believe, looking at tea party suggestions of spending, that it is tough to make the argument that they care for the poor. They want to strengthen the balance sheet of America almost solely on the back of poor people, old people,and the disabled (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and social program spending cuts).
Ex-GOP: Heck, last time we had a Clinton in the White House, we had a balanced budget!
You know, we really did not. The federal gov’t is stupid and uses the device of “off-budget” items to fake things. The gov’t was several hundred billion Dollars in the red that year. Every year, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office makes a report on the total cost of gov’t, everything included. You can see for yourself that we have not had a balanced budget in many decades.
Not ragging on Clinton, specifically – we were closer to a balanced budget that year than any since and any for a while before. It’s not like Republicans are any type of “fiscal conservatives” – every time in the last 40+ years that a Republican President has followed a Democrat, the deficits have not gone down. They have not stayed the same. Every time, they have gone up a lot.
“This isn’t that hard – if an insurance payout was part of the legislation, it got estimated and is part of the CBO score. If it isn’t, it didn’t. ”
Ex-RINO, it was a part of the plan but it was ‘projected’ that the insurance companies would not need a government bailout so it wasn’t part of their scoring…hmmmm
truth – can you provide a link on the $10 billion, and I’ll give you an answer. I think you might be misleading on the ‘bailout’ word, if you are talking about what I think you are talking about. Did you factcheck and research what you are claiming?
Doug -
I’ve heard that Clinton’s budget is debated – factcheck declaring it a balanced budget is good enough for me – but the intent of your post doesn’t seem to be to split hairs.
I will say, if you told me that we had to work towards a balanced budget, I’d take a Democrat. Democrats know that any path to a balanced budget takes a mix of cuts and increases. Republicans somehow think you can do it with only cuts – and then move the military off the table. The lines they draw in the sand make in an unreachable goal (without turning our country into a third world land).
By the way – I saw on another post that you were disappointed in the newest spending bill – what area of the bill didn’t you like?
Ex-RINO,
This link explains to you what ‘bailout’ I am referring to. It comes from the ‘risk corridor’ section of Obamacare and puts tax-payers on the hook for 75% of any insurance company payouts that exceed 8% more than the premiums they collect. CBO’s projection of 7 million people signing up and the percentages of healthy enrollees were both low. So Obamacare is turning into a taxpayers bailout of health insurance companies
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-20/stop-obamacare-s-outrageous-bailouts.html
truth -
This isn’t anything new – they did this in Bush’s Medicare expansion as well (which the article notes). They theory is that companies are blindly putting together rates and such, and those rates are tough to project because of the unknowns of enrollment – so they build in buffers for companies so that they still are more apt to take on risk.
Your direct question though regarding if this was in the CBO – it was – $10 billion in 2014, $6 billion in 2015, and $4 billion in 2016.
Kaiser writes about it more, and how it will help stabilize the market these first few years. http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/the-numbers-behind-young-invincibles-and-the-affordable-care-act/
So my statement still stands – if you want to increase the federal deficit, repeal health care reform.