Is the House speaker right when he says “Democrats have yet to get serious about spending cuts”?

by L.A. Times Posted 2012/11/29 20:00:00

3,413 votes
Read all 1,820 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	1,525 votes	45%
	No	1,888 votes	55%

House Speaker John A. Boehner struck a gloomy note Thursday after meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as Democrats hold firm that taxes for the wealthy must rise as part of a year-end budget deal. “I’m disappointed where we are,” the Ohio Republican said after the morning meeting with Geithner and other administration officials in the Capitol.

As the deadline narrows toward the year-end “fiscal cliff,” neither political party appears willing to budge from their positions, both believing they have a mandate from voters, who returned divided government to Washington. Failure for Congress and the White House to reach agreement would result in a $2,200 tax hike on average Americans and massive spending reductions beginning Jan. 2.

+35

Add a comment above

Lanikai 2012/11/29 20:25:46

Yes

+46
They said yesterday that they will NOT cut spending until next year, maybe.

So if the DEMS are not willing to cut spending, why should the repubs agree to more revenue.
>> See Replies

More polls by L.A. Times

Shokk Me Please 2012/12/07 04:55:09
Pamela Perkins 2012/12/04 22:25:33

Yes

They do, but they will not cut the entitlement programs. These programs are draining the country dry,

reply
Average... to Pamela ... 2012/12/05 00:31:21

Puh-lease! Hypocritical and ironic how when any of the billions in foreign aid is earmarked for this country it magically morphs (via misguided but oft well-meaning conservatives) into "entitlements." That's the new buzzword created for those prone to regurgitation of rhetoric by some who incorrectly believe they are oppressed conservatives. In case you're not aware, the "baby mama welfare" in this country is DWARFED by the corporate welfare, foreign aid spending and military industrial machine earmarks. Now you know. Now you're armed with the right information. I hope it doesn't make you dangerous.

reply
gimini210 to Average... 2012/12/05 05:08:06

+1
Actually the "baby mama welfare" is 1.6 trillion a year now. It is not dwarfed by anything. 53% of those on that "welfare" are illegals. So by cutting and regulating welfare you could save a ton of revenue.

reply
Average... to gimini210 2012/12/06 21:20:40

+1
You added a "1" to your figure. Govt. welfare is but $.06 trillion and is "dwarfed" by government pensions, healthcare, etc. Welfare is, just as a start. See "Government Spending, The Details."
http://www.usgovernmentspendi...

SO .. $422 billion spent on welfare and MORE than 2,831 BILLION (NOT counting the $23.5 BILLION spent on foreign aid (which does NOT include foreign aid to foreign countries' military) http://www.yesmagazine.org/is...

By cutting all of the above we can save -several- tons of revenue.

reply
gimini210 to Average... 2012/12/06 22:53:08

Excuse me but the government site lists welfare checks, food stamps, medicaid, housing and energy assistance and when added with the pail grant and other welfare programs that gives money through these programs you go well over 1.6 trillion. Look it up. Look up how much the government shells out before you say the figures are wrong.

reply
Average... to gimini210 2012/12/07 16:51:52

I understand. However, I was under the implication and (incorrect) assumption that you would be able to distinguish what constitutes "baby mama" welfare in as much as personal welfare checks.

reply
gimini210 to Average... 2012/12/07 22:58:56

I am saying welfare, as in any program the government gives taxpayers money to people without expectations of ever being paid back, that is welfare and the government has a ton of them costing over a trillion every year. It isn't a matter of just babies mama, it is the free grants for A+ students, the pell grants, housing, food stamps, energy assistance, and let us not forget foreign aid for college funds as well.

reply
gimini210 to Average... 2012/12/06 23:51:15

http://www2.ed.gov/about/over...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.or...

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news...

Twenty-four percent ($58 billion) went to rental housing programs and 6 percent went to programs that support both.

reply
Average... to gimini210 2012/12/07 16:59:13

Do you mean "Pell Grant?" When we begin referring to government education grants as "welfare" or entitlements, something is inherently wrong. And the dumbing down of AmeriKa continues.

reply
gimini210 to Average... 2012/12/07 22:59:30

Yea misspelled it and it wouldn't edit so could get it right.

reply
Pamela ... to Average... 2012/12/05 13:23:34

You got that back asswards, Liberal idiot. You people just can't or won't see the truth.

reply
Average... to Pamela ... 2012/12/06 21:22:34 (edited)

+1
Ah, that's the classic response when you see a statement you can't agree with or comprehend. Try not to allow the blood from your menstruation while viewing the empirical data (you know, actual -facts-) provided above to stain any of our patriotic clothes and do try not to reduce yourself to meltdown status again in the future for all to enjoy. God, I love the Internet!

reply
Red Ruffansore 2012/12/04 21:01:46

Yes

BUT Da Bone is going to fold like an origama swan, collapse like a cheap camp stool. He's going to bend over more than a wino standing in a fountain full of quarters.

Spend loons, continue to spend. Eat the rich loons, eat them all...oh did I forget to mention their money is all safely tied up in trust funds and other vehicles to avoid taxes? Yeah, pretty much so. You morons got played and now financial lessons are coming. Remember, still laughing at you. That much hasn't changed.

reply
gimini210 2012/12/04 20:33:12

Yes

What part of broke does Washington not get? Not a single person in the US could compile a debt like our nation is and still keep spending. We would be locked up first for stealing money as congress did with social security, borrowing without the intent to ever pay it back, which our government can't do without taxing us all 100% of every penny we earn, and for insider trading and financing failing companies so we could make a profit. It is time the government stops acting like mindless morons and takes on the job of running our nation for the good of our people and country and not themselves. It may cause pain to all of us to have serious cuts made but without them our nation will fall and it will cost us all a lot more in the long run.

reply
Mark Colwell 2012/12/04 20:11:57

No

The Presidents proposal seems to include more spending cuts that speakers proposal includes tax increases on the wealthy... so I'm inclined to believe that he is the one not being serious.

reply
Cut and paste king 2012/12/04 19:24:38
thomas.ilgenfritz 2012/12/04 18:53:48

No

+3
President Obama has stated his position many times..for the last two years he has said the same thing. When will the Republicans realize the people want higher taxes on the 2% and abandon their pledge to someone that was not elected but only has power because of money...Make your pledge to the American people..not Grover Norquist..

reply
gimini210 to thomas.... 2012/12/04 20:39:27 (edited)

It wont work. A 5% tax increase wont bring in the needed 4 trillion to bring the debt down. Do the math. if the top 2% pays 86% of the taxes now and our government is spending 3.5 trillion MORE than it takes in that 800 billion wont do crap to stop the collapse of our nation. All it will do if Obama gets his way is add 1.6 trillion more in debt to go along with the 1.9 trillion health bill, and the 3.5 trillion Washington already spends we are not taking in. Our government has to make drastic cuts and stop borrowing money we will never be able to pay back even if everyone of us were taxed 100% of our income.

reply
Average... to gimini210 2012/12/05 00:34:25
Tarheel to Average... 2012/12/27 23:50:28

That's what I asked several times. With no answers either.

reply
Average... to Tarheel 2012/12/28 23:19:59

+1
That's because the so-called conservatives on this issue realize it's a massive fail and have no answer.

reply
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/12/04 18:49:44

No

+2
We need to tax more and spend more to get us out of this mess that George W Bush made for us over a hundred years ago.

reply
Lee The... to Chris -... 2012/12/06 00:19:51

+1
LOL

reply
Chris -... to Lee The... 2012/12/06 14:11:06

+1
Glad some people get it!

reply
rich 2012/12/04 17:34:22

No

+1
Same annoying, difficult, self involved, whiny creature he has always been! His only goal is to get in the way and make things worse.

reply
wysiwis 2012/12/04 16:38:57

Yes

+1
When the "D"'s say they'll make cuts "next year" if we agree to a tax increase this year, you can rest assured that those cuts won't ever be made.
Constitutionally, budgets MUST be initiated through the House, the House has passed 2 budgets since 2011 when the Republicans took it back. The Senate (under democrat control(Harry Reid anyone!)) hasn't even let them come to committee for discussion.

reply
Chris -... to wysiwis 2012/12/04 18:50:30

+2
Reagan fell for that......ONCE.

reply
wysiwis to Chris -... 2012/12/05 14:21:12

+1
That he did, but he learned his lesson. Lets just hope that the rest of the republicans in congress have learned it as well.

reply
Scrappyang 2012/12/04 13:51:04

No

The R's have held the country hostage to get their own way for four years. Its time to work together and work for ALL our country, not just a small portion.

reply
Chris -... to Scrappyang 2012/12/04 18:51:00

+1
Nobody is working for us constitutionalists.......just sayin'.

reply
Scrappyang to Chris -... 2012/12/05 07:28:45

+1
How right you are! They each have their own agenda!!

reply
Mo 2012/12/04 13:30:48

Yes

+1
Yes yes yes. Obama thinks he's the king. He wil stomp his little foot, cross his bony arms and refuse anything that isn't exactly in his dictatorial socialist plan. He's the bully on the playground and Boehner will give him our lunch money and get nothing in return from that arrogant, tyrant who will be giggling from his 4 million dollar undeserved vacation.

reply
Average... to Mo 2012/12/05 00:38:07

+1
Nothing in return? You been under a rock? Boehner held the country hostage by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling this past year unless the Bush-lite tax cuts were extended. Try to keep up. You got the tax cuts and we were told the cuts would result in reinvestment by the wealthiest creating jobs. Where are the jobs as a result of the cuts? Here's what we received in exchange for BOEHNER'S temper tantrum ... http://costoftaxcuts.com/. Oh, and don't forget the record-setting, all-time high number of fillibusters by the thugs ... 112.

reply
Mo to Average... 2012/12/05 13:53:38

+2
Obama is saying he doesn't want to address anything except tax hikes untill next year. Thats how we get nothing. The jobs went away because of Obama. He always manages to convince *some* people it's all everyone else's fault. Boehner woosed out and caved because he was getting bad press. The " tantrum" you refer to was his attempt to do what he should have done while the thuggish obama refused to budge. He did what Obama wanted and it made things worse. What a surprise. Obama doesn't want to improve the economy he wants control of everything.

reply
Pamela ... to Mo 2012/12/06 00:03:38

reply
Average... to Mo 2012/12/06 21:27:20 (edited)

You can't obfuscate Boehner's past behavior by invoking another, even if it is the pre-appointed boogie man many need and require to justify the hijacking of Congress by playing politics at America's expense. In other words you can't justify your own behavior by pointing to another person's poor behavior. This is abdication of personal responsibility at its finest. The jobs went away? The tax cuts were in for years before Obama came into office and the jobs did NOT appear as a result of these tax cuts. In fact, job creations were at a modest level, the same as in Bush's first year in office so the tax cuts did nothing but add to the deficit and Budget, something some people simply refuse to acknowledge.

reply
Mo to Average... 2012/12/06 23:07:02

Arrange your use of new vocabulary into a sensible series of statements. Then when I can decipher your meaning,I may be able to understand where you are going wrong in yor conclusions.

reply
Average... to Mo 2012/12/11 15:33:43

Constituting rudimentary language as "new" is your issue, not mine.

reply
Mo to Average... 2012/12/12 00:07:36

No. You just can't form a sentence, and you don't seem to know the meanings of words you choose. Since it sounds as if you just chose some longish words and strung them together, your accusation makes no sense. It is in keeping with your comment. Bye.

reply