Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Obama, Boehner each score points in budget pact

World Apr. 10, 2011 - 06:03AM JST ( 16 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

16 Comments

0

SargeApr. 10, 2011 - 10:20AM JST

The budget battle ends. The war now begins. LOL.
0

WolfpackApr. 10, 2011 - 10:34AM JST

This has got to be one of the most biased articles that I've read on JT in a long while. President Obama and the Dems didn't want any cuts at all. Republicans kept upping the ante and Senator Reid could never move the debate in his direction. Speaker Boehner got everything that he wanted and got the vast majority of his members in Congress on board with him. As for President Obama, he was invisible until the very end. He then swoops in just to hand Boehner the ball game.

This article misses the point. The Republicans want to stop the obscene Federal spending. They threw in the controversial social issues at the end as misdirection causing the Liberals to waste all of their time making outrageous statements about how the Republicans want to "kill women" - Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). The Dems feel good about themselves because they are able to say that they saved the day for Planned Parenthood so they can continue to (indirectly) pay for abortions. President Obama was hilarious in his news conference. He comes out claiming that this was an "historic agreement" when he gave everything and got nothing in return. It is funny to see the Dems get rolled and then act like they came out on top!
0

lostrune2Apr. 10, 2011 - 05:30PM JST

Boehner is gonna be eaten alive by the Tea Partyers "No Compromise!"....
0

VirtuosoApr. 10, 2011 - 07:01PM JST

The USA is fast becoming a land of aristocrats (thanks to generous tax cuts) and serfs. It's like 18th century Russia all over again. Eventually a Lenin will emerge, and those in power will find themselves exiled, and if they're lucky they'll find work as doormen in Shanghai nightclubs.
0

MolenirApr. 10, 2011 - 07:21PM JST

Boehner is gonna be eaten alive by the Tea Partyers "No Compromise!"....

Hmm, well its easy to understand why. I mean in the week leading up to this 'historic' compromise where they cut 38 billion, the debt increased by more then 50 billion. Thats in just 1 week. Not the total spent, but rather the total increase in the debt caused by deficit spending. So pardon me if I don't exactly rejoice over cutting about 2% of what they actually need to cut. Now if they had cut 1.3 trillion, the amount of the deficit, then, then I'd have something to celebrate.
0

yabitsApr. 10, 2011 - 08:48PM JST

President Obama and the Dems didn't want any cuts at all. Republicans kept upping the ante

Of course, the statement above is not true, but it is revealing. As soon as the Democrats agreed to a level of cuts proposed by the Republicans, Boohoo-ner kept moving the goalposts -- or "upping the ante" as the poster wrote.

I think Boohoo-ner is the weepiest person in the House since the most lachrymose Democratic woman. (I'm thinking Pat Shroeder.)
0

Lieberman2012Apr. 10, 2011 - 09:12PM JST

It's been a tough week for us Democrats.The vote in Wisconsin didn't go our way and even the AP is saying Boehner won this one.Obama will be facing a challenger in the primaries at this rate.
0

elbudamexicanoApr. 10, 2011 - 09:53PM JST

First I thought Obama had a funny name, but this guy Boener, is is pronounced like when you have a boner? And what is up with that fake sun tan all year round?
0

bruinfanApr. 10, 2011 - 10:23PM JST

It would be nice to see cuts in military spending (the US spend way too much here-more than all other countries put together) and the various farm subsidies.
0

MolenirApr. 11, 2011 - 06:07AM JST

Of course, the statement above is not true, but it is revealing. As soon as the Democrats agreed to a level of cuts proposed by the Republicans, Boohoo-ner kept moving the goalposts -- or "upping the ante" as the poster wrote.

Which part isn't true? The part where he said Dems didn't want cuts? Cause if so, that most definitely is true. Not only is it accurate, Obama wanted to spend an additional 45 billion more then they are doing. So you could easily say that the Dems wanted to increase spending, not decrease it.

I won't get into your sniping at Boehner. Honestly though, comparing him with the former speaker, he still comes off a hundred times better. Except for the fake tan. I admit, that bothers me too.

It would be nice to see cuts in military spending (the US spend way too much here-more than all other countries put together) and the various farm subsidies.

Theres plenty of room for cuts. Removing most of the subsidies is a good start. Hell, you could just about kill the departments of Energy, Education, and Agriculture, and not really be worse off. That would save hundreds of billions of dollars. Structural changes to social security and medicare are going to happen or both programs will fail. Doing it sooner rather then later means it will be less painful to accomplish. No, theres lots of places they could cut. Even if they just rolled back spending to before the Dems came into power in 2006, they would have a surplus.
0

yabitsApr. 11, 2011 - 06:44AM JST

Hell, you could just about kill the departments of Energy, Education, and Agriculture, and not really be worse off. That would save hundreds of billions of dollars

This is the stuff that shows the ignorance of so many conservatives. Killing off the three departments would not save hundreds of billions of dollars. The combined budgets of the three departments totals just over $100 billion.

Even if they just rolled back spending to before the Dems came into power in 2006, they would have a surplus.

Ridiculous.
0

manfromamericaApr. 11, 2011 - 11:55AM JST

Obama, Boehner each score points in budget pact

they're both losers. and hopefully both will be voted out of office soon.
0

IronDomeApr. 11, 2011 - 01:02PM JST

"The USA is fast becoming a land of aristocrats (thanks to generous tax cuts) and serfs. It's like 18th century Russia all over again. Eventually a Lenin will emerge, and those in power will find themselves exiled, and if they're lucky they'll find work as doormen in Shanghai nightclubs."

Aristocrats?The top 10 percent - "the super rich" - pay 70 percent of taxes.The bottom 40 percent pay NO taxes.

And no, America is not like Russia,for the simple reason that we are no longer an agrarian nation.The comparison is ludicrous.

The rest of that post is just silly hyperbole.
0

manfromamericaApr. 11, 2011 - 01:45PM JST

The USA is fast becoming a land of aristocrats (thanks to generous tax cuts) and serfs. It's like 18th century Russia all over again. Eventually a Lenin will emerge, and those in power will find themselves exiled, and if they're lucky they'll find work as doormen in Shanghai nightclubs.

this is just a silly communist cliche.
0

MolenirApr. 11, 2011 - 02:10PM JST

This is the stuff that shows the ignorance of so many conservatives. Killing off the three departments would not save hundreds of billions of dollars. The combined budgets of the three departments totals just over $100 billion.

I did say hundreds of billions of dollars didn't I. Hmm, and you're right, the budget for those departments do total more then a hundred billion. Maybe I should have been more precise and stated exactly how much we would save by eliminating them. However I wasn't precise for the simple reason that not all the programs in them, should be cut. Guess that didn't occur to you either though.

Ridiculous.

Ridiculous it is not. Look at the budget for 2006, compare it to the income today, and you'll see that simply going back to the Pre-Dem budget would create a small surplus. That wasn't hard to check.

this is just a silly communist cliche.

Actually, you're giving him way too much credit.
0

manfromamericaApr. 11, 2011 - 02:47PM JST

However I wasn't precise for the simple reason that not all the programs in them, should be cut.

But... but... but... (!)