Rather, I should ask this "Did Boehner's rebuttal to the President's speech last night bother anyone else?"
I am not asking for your party affiliation or even really detailed exploration of your feelings regarding the debt ceiling. Simply looking at Boehner's speech when he said, "The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it." As I heard him utter this sentence, I was insulted and infuriated on behalf of anyone who's ever taken a second job or liquidated assets to get through a rough financial patch. It seems like he is purposely omitting the other half of that statement that many of us are intimately familiar with..... "or increase revenue."
Did anyone else feel this was a fairly moronic omission and colored the whole speech unfavorably?
If nothing else, perhaps that speech writer should be out of a job?
I understand it is difficult to separate your personal/political beliefs and discuss something like a political speech without discussing your side of things. I felt that as a rebuttal, Boehner's speech failed to adequately address the questions on the table. My analogy of taking on additional jobs or liquidating assets was just that, an analogy. It was meant to illustrate the reality of options, options that seemed completely ignored in Beohner's speech making it less of a rebuttal than a diatribe. I think I can discern from the responses that I've gotten so far that those who already agreed with Boehner felt the omission was irrelevant, and those that didn't agree previously perhaps agree less now. Was anyone on the fence swayed either way?
Cheryl - I find your analogy interesting. In the case of a child where only two parents have to agree, it is feasible to label your hypothetical teenager's spending as frivolous and decide to cut off her allowance and encourage her to get a job to pay for her own bills. However, spending cuts for our government requires subjectivity en masse determining fiscal priorities. That is difficult.
I appreciate those of you who read the question I asked and responded appropriately.
Well, considering that increasing revenue will take money out of my pocket involuntarily through increased taxes, I don't feel that it is a moronic omission. I think there is a lot of government spending that could be reined in and it's time to start making some tough choices. Or not so tough choices, really.
I think there is PLENTY of wasteful spending. Why would I want the gov't to have more of my $ when they mismanage such a large amount of what they already get? Spend some time on the non-partisan Citizens Against Gov't Waste website, and you just can't help but get irritated.
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/waste-watcher/
Peace :)
@ S K- excellent link!!
Moronic? We have a spending problem. And we need to reign it in. What's so dumb about that?
Why should the government get more of our hard-earned dollars when everything they touch is mismanaged? I don't get how that will help.
I am sorry but I absolutely agree with Rep. Boehner....if a family is spending more than they are taking in then they are in trouble...if a country is doing the same thing they are in trouble too!! He is not telling us that we all need to go out and get a 2nd ( or 3rd) job...he is saying that we (the govt.) needs to start really looking at where they are spending their (OUR) money and start making some really hard decisions. I think the first thing we need is Line-item veto...so that the ridiculous add ons that get put in with some legitimately needed bill ( millions to learn why the dinosaurs died or why fruit flies like oranges more than apples) can be eliminated without making the original bill disappear too.
Let's start holding our politicians responsible for how they spend our money...lets get rid of the "good old boys" club and the "You scratch my back I"ll scratch yours" club and start spending our tax dollars in a responsible way.
We need to quit thinking that we, as a society are "entitled" to live the good life just because we are Americans. Lets instill a little pride in our young people again...let's teach them that if you work hard, apply yourself, do well in school....then you are going to be a success.
And we can't increase our revenue by just increasing the taxes on the wealthy...whether you believe it or not...they are already paying way more than their share of our countries' taxes. And if we put a much bigger tax burden on them, then they are not going to be able to expand their companies, hire new people, give the people who already work for them a raise....and eventually the society as a whole will suffer because of it.
I don't pretend to know what the complete answer to this current crisis is...but the socialism that our current President is wanting to push is NOT the answer...it will just dig our grave deeper and more quickly
No, I was NOT offended. The spending MUST stop.
The government is NOT a business...it is NOT there to provide for the people...it is supposed to be a REPUBLIC that provides laws and a military for protection..NOT to provide health care, food and homes...
Why should people who went out and made something of themselves and for themselves be penalized? The popular saying....socialism is great until you run out of OTHER PEOPLEs money....IT IS OUR money they are messing with....I don't like how they are spending it...
California is in a HUGE HUGE HUGE crisis - we help illegal immigrants more than we do our own citizens...this MUST STOP!!!!
They DO NOT need to increase revenue...they MUST stop spending more than they take in......no if ands or butts about it.
It's politics...they have "spin doctors" who write stuff to help support their "side" of things...
the bottom line? WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!! Our elected officials (i.e. OUR EMPLOYEES!) are spending MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN...
Increase revenue? Okay - so they can spend MORE? NO!!! you cut back on what you are already spending on.....i did not take offense to it..the government is NOT a business nor is it a person...it was set up to PROTECT the people with laws and militia...NOT PROVIDE FOR THEM...
Programs MUST BE CUT. PERIOD...
How's this for an analogy? Okay, let's look at this debt thing another way: Let's say you give your teenager $100 a week for expenses. They spend $40 on gas, $8 on their cell phone/apps/music/etc., $12 to make their minimum credit card payment, $16 on clothes, and $64 on cigarettes/candy = $140 total. When their credit card gets maxed out, can they still make the minimum payment ($12) on their debt? Of course they can.
Now, the point is - they are spending money on something you don't want them to spend it on...so what do you DO?
ETA - punishing people because they are successful? Tax them because they took the initiative to DO SOMETHING instead of depending upon the government to take care of them? They shouldn't be punished for making something of themselves...
No it is just you, all he was saying was the government needs to live within its means. I don't have a clue how you equated this to people who have had to take a second job or liquidated assets. I am pretty sure you didn't take a second job and liquidate assets while still going on vacation, drinking lattes every day and getting your weekly mani/pedi. That was Boehners point, not your interpretation.
Your what happened made as much sense as your OP. How could a country take on a second job? Should we invade a few countries until we have a balanced budget. Liquidate assets? Who wants a used $500 dollar toilet seat. Your entire post is dripping with condescension towards anyone who doesn't believe as you do, yet you put out nothing to earn that esteem. Clearly you are a liberal.
Well, our government needs to spend less. Period. No matter how moronic he came across, we need to be spending less. Yes, it's true. If you spend more then you bring in, you have to spend less. It's not personal, it's the truth.
At this point in our economy...I think spending less will be easier, then simply increasing revenue. We need to do both, but especially spend less. We need to do both, without further taxing.
I share Boehner's view that spending MUST be cut, but disagree that more taxes should not be collected. Notice my wording--not supporting RAISING taxes, just eliminating many of the loopholes in the tax code that allows Big Biz to get away with paying less in income taxes than the average American family. Yes, he should have mentioned it and gone into some detail
My disagreement with the Democratics is just WHOSE taxes should be raised. Everyone in the $250k+ range? I am opposed to that, as that includes the vast majority of successful small businesses. I come from a family of many entreprenuers and have worked in some capacity in various family biz's since I was about 10 yrs old. I understand what happens when taxes are raised on small biz--they cannot hire, they cannot fund 401k plans, they cannot innovate, they cannot support local charities, they oftentimes have to lay off workers. I have sat with family members as they crunched numbers and PRAYED to have enough cash flow to make payroll each month.
I don't think anyone who has a strong opinion on this issue could have watched either Pres. Obama's speech or Congressman Boehner's response with an open mind. Neither speech would sway me one way or the other; just reinforce what I already believe.
I will refrain from writing a thesis and cut it off here, but I'll just say that I thought Boehner's speech was one of the strongest he has given, but it could have been better.
I completely agree with Pamela. I don't see why there are so many loop holes for the very rich. Why there is such a vast difference between the top floor and the shop floor? Why do working class Republicans support these people?
I am not talking about small business, and I agree about cutting spending, I think the social safety net needs a complete overhaul (not less money, but money spent more wisely) but the Republicans need to let go of some sacred cows too!
And we pay our elected officials way too much, and think of ALL the perks they get in addition to their salaries. And how often the seats in congress are empty.
No swaying here. I unapologetically agree with him.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/do-we-really-have-a...
Great article.
All those who say we have a revenue problem, get out your checkbooks. No one says YOU can't send the government more money. Have at it!!!!!
Funny. When I read your title, I thought you were talking about Obama's speech. Now that was moronic and insulting!!
Yes it was an omission. An intentional and politically motivated one. Since we don't want to give up our wars, our roads, our food safety, our drug safety, our child safety (yeah it's the government who makes sure our car seats are safe and our kid's toys aren't completely coated in lead), our social security, our medicare, our airport and airline safety then yes we all have to pay more. Of course we have to do both, cut spending and increase revenue.
I agree with you, there are two ways to balance the budget, decrease spending and increase revenue, and frankly it is ridiculous to eliminate half of the solution to the problem.
Those individuals - not corporations which is a whole different set - who personally make more than $350K a year, should have higher taxes. They should not be allowed to write off every 'business dinner', every new wardrobe for business, nor write off their vacation homes, and luxury vehicles like yachts or extra cars for business purposes.
Corporations should not be able to get out of paying ANY taxes - they are trillion dollar businesses and they should stop paying their CEOs so much d*mn money while their REAL workers and employees struggle due to their low wages!
Elected officials should not be making such a high salary NOR get the obscene perks and lifetime health care benefit and pension packets they get for having a TEMPORARY ELECTED post!
The majority of hard working Americans should not suffer because the elite wealthy (4-8% vs the 92%) don't want to give up their extreme perks, extreme lifestyles and extreme spending.
Cutting spending is going to be a hard one, not because it shouldn't be done but because the much of the spending we are doing has been considered essential. I take issue with people who equate cutting the budget with "extra lattes and mani pettis". I agree that there is spending that is useless, but it's essentially less than a penny in terms of the amount of our budget.
This was a really interesting article about spending and cutting the budget: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/getti...
Regardless of what side you're on, when we start getting to the specifics it's really tough. Having watched Montgomery County, MD going thru tough cuts, a popular county exec is having a tough time because he's having to cut services that are very, very useful and needed, like daycare, recreational facilities, certain social services for the working poor, after school programs. I can't be very specific about what cuts have been made at this moment, but having free or low cost daycare when you're working a 8-12 shift can mean the difference between you having a job that keeps you off welfare or not.
I'm not saying that there are not cuts to be made, I just think we need to be less blase about characterizing it and understand that cuts will hurt, and hurt ALL OF US personally. So I guess that leaving revenue out of the discussion would not be my first choice...but that's going to hurt too. It's all gonna hurt no matter what way we go.
Please don't blame the speech writer! As a speech writer myself, I can tell you that the writer is only there to give voice to the politician's policies, not to make them up out of whole cloth. The Republicans do not want to talk about raising taxes, that's why that obvious solution wasn't mentioned in his speech. If the speech writer had put that in, guaranteed that Boehner would have taken it right out!
I did not see the speech, so I will only comment on the actual statement that you quoted... And I'll do my best to keep out my own personal political beliefs. ;)
I think Boehner's overall meaning was about balance, and budget. Or proportions or something. If you spend more than you make, you should cut back, if possible. If you are not willing to cut back, or can not, you should, like you said, increase your revenue. Certainly those two statements are easier said than done. And I would assume that he didn't mean for it to offend anyone, but the honest truth is something has to be done, and the hard truth for many Americans is that the soft cushiony life they live, is gonna get a little hard or uncomfortable.
It is possible that Boehner was targeting the people who are not doing these things, and choose to live beyond their means.
There are people like that.
As for my husband and I, really no matter what political party you are associated with, we have no debt besides our home mortgage (which is still a lot). That may not be realistic for most people, and I would not at all judge, but I think people should strive for that. We choose to not have credit cards, and we pay more towards our premium, and have since payed off our car.
This problem is so major, and I don't think people's feelings should be hurt. There are some hard truths that have to be spoken. But the solution has to start somewhere.
KATIE
I think it was an intentional omission as "increased revenue" = taxes. A huge sticking point in the attempt at a deal is the Republicans are desperately trying to avoid agreeing to a tax increase esp. with the presidential election coming up next year. Right or wrong, I won't weigh in, but I think that was why he avoided the subject of increased revenue.
