Who is more to blame for the debt?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

So the general impression out there seems to be that President Obama has greatly increased the debt, even more-so than his successor George W. Bush. To the extent that one or the other is more to blame for the deficit, conventional wisdom seems to be that it is President Obama. But check this out:

 

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health

 

 

I can't really copy and paste this because the most important thing is the chart, which really lays out how most of the debt added in the last twelve years is largely attributable to Bush. Basically most of the debt is the result of Bush's tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

And this is from The New Republic, mind you, which is hardly a liberal bastion. If anything TNR skews a bit conservative.

 

Now I can tell you right now that there is one flaw with this graph. It attributes ALL of the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan to Bush. Now Bush did start those wars and he probably deserves a larger credit of the cost for them. But at the same time President Obama campaigned on getting out of those wars and it has not yet happened. So I don't think it is fair to hang all of the debt from those wars on Bush.

 

Nonetheless, the point remains: apparently President Obama is not more blameworthy than Bush when it comes to the expanding debt, and may in fact be the more innocent party in all of this.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/if-only-obama-had-been-an-irresponsible-spender-like-bush-was/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SayAnything+%28Say+Anything%29

 

 

Um, that would be Obama.

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahaahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banana: :banana:

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

Nonetheless, the point remains: apparently President Obama is not more blameworthy than Bush when it comes to the expanding debt, and may in fact be the more innocent party in all of this.

Bush sucked as a president: socially conservative, fiscally liberal.

 

 

 

Obama is far from an innocent party, he is spending like crazy as well.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Obama is far from an innocent party, he is spending like crazy as well.

 

You are correct. I think that was a bad choice of words on my part. Both Presidents spent recklessly. My only point is that President Obama may not be more reckless than Bush was. Conservatives seem to believe that Bush was bad but Obama is much, much worse. That is apparently not true.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

And this is from The New Republic, mind you, which is hardly a liberal bastion.

 

 

Um, no it's not. Look at the sources who actually did the study.

 

In addition, the Center explores the tradeoffs between competing budget and tax proposals that reflect different priorities, such as tax cuts that primarily benefit upper-income households versus investments in programs aimed at low- and moderate-income households or initiatives that benefit the nation as a whole, such as improving education or protecting the environment.

 

We work on programs such as:

 

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (for example, by encouraging efforts to expand health coverage among low-income working families);

Food stamps (for example, by designing and promoting state options to simplify and streamline food stamp procedures and thereby boost participation among working-poor families);

 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (for example, by helping states design programs that can help TANF recipients succeed in the workplace and increase their earnings);

 

Supplemental Security Income (for example, by promoting policies that increase the fairness and accuracy of the disability determination process);

 

WIC and child nutrition (for example, by helping states contain WIC costs by negotiating advantageous contracts with infant formula manufacturers);

 

Low-income housing programs (for example, by designing improvements to help families with housing assistance use it to move to areas with better job opportunities)

 

Low-income tax credits (for example, by developing proposals to improve the operation of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit and by helping states create or expand state EITCs).

 

 

 

 

Your "source" is a radical left-wing outfit.

 

Nice job, Worms.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Um, no it's not. Look at the sources who actually did the study.

 

 

 

 

Your "source" is a radical left-wing outfit.

 

Nice job, Worms.

 

That's funny, because the link I gave appears to go to the New Republic website. Have these crazy liberals hacked the New Republic website and taken it over for their own nefarious uses???!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Worms "source" endorsed by a who's who of Liberal elites.

 

What Others Say About the Center

 

“Some months ago, faced with my own philanthropic dilemma, I began informally polling friends, sources and readers to get a sense of which organizations carry weight in both foreign- and domestic-policy negotiations. On domestic policy, the name that kept coming up was the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It leans left, but people on both sides admire its empirical rigor, focus on policy and fierce advocacy. It is widely acknowledged as having a voice in both the White House and Congress.”

- Ezra Klein, The Washington Post

 

 

“The invaluable Center on Budget and Policy Priorities … [has] been the go-to resource for consistently reliable analysis on matters of budgets and fiscal policy at every level of government.”

- Vice President Biden

 

“n a political environment rife with ideological warfare and poisoned by partisanship, the Center’s knack for getting things done sets it apart from . . . well, from just about everybody else in Washington.”

- Steven Pearlstein, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post

 

 

“[F]or more than 20 years [the Center] has established itself as the premier authority on budgetary issues … because its record for scrupulous accuracy is unblemished and because the Center’s work is as carefully consumed by the government officials it watches as by the activists it serves.”

- Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe

 

“[The Center’s] statistical work is absolutely impeccable. If you care about [fiscal issues], check CBPP’s site regularly for updates.”

- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's funny, because the link I gave appears to go to the New Republic website. Have these crazy liberals hacked the New Republic website and taken it over for their own nefarious uses???!

 

 

 

Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.

[MDC 8,011]

When you can't contest the facts, attack the source.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

When you can't contest the facts, attack the source.

 

 

What "facts" do you refer to?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

Did you peruse the rest of the article? Because this is all original content FROM THE NEW REPUBLIC:

 

 

By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.

 

In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.

 

Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Since the Moron never answers a direct question, let me address the "facts" worms presented in his OP:

 

Basically most of the debt is the result of Bush's tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

1. Revenues increased dramatically when the Bush tax cuts took affect.

 

2. The Iraq war was winding down when Bush left office, thus the costs were also winding down. Let's ignore the FACT Obama promised to have us out of Iraq in 18 months after taking office. How much have we spent in Iraq from the date of his broken promise?

 

3. Obama dramatically increased our involvement in Afghanistan, and thus the cost of that war.

 

4. Obama has increased non-military discretionary spending around 25% since taking office.

 

5. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time highs under Obama, with the exception of WWII.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Did you peruse the rest of the article? Because this is all original content FROM THE NEW REPUBLIC:

 

 

The rest of the article is total BS.

 

HTH

[MDC 8,011]

The rest of the article is total BS.

 

HTH

 

Well that about sums it up: the facts are wrong an it's all Obaaaaaaaaaaama's fault!

[GettnHuge 2]

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/us_public_debt_ceiling_trillions.png

 

hth

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well that about sums it up: the facts are wrong an it's all Obaaaaaaaaaaama's fault!

 

 

Exactly which "facts" to you refer to?

 

Oh................nevermind.

[MDC 8,011]

Exactly which "facts" to you refer to/

 

The ones you keep ignoring cause you're all butt hurt by your obsession with a powerful black male.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The ones you keep ignoring

 

....and those would be??????

[Vikings4ever 569]

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/us_public_debt_ceiling_trillions.png

 

hth

Mistake in that graph. 2001-2002 should be a split congress.

 

Republicans held the house, and the Senate for the first 6 months of the session until a Senator defected and Democrats retook the Senate.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/us_public_debt_ceiling_trillions.png

 

hth

 

 

Debt accumulated under total Dem control:

 

$7.9 Trillion or 60% of total debt

 

 

Debt accumulated under total Rep control:

 

$1.7 Trillion or 13% of total debt.

 

 

Too much spending by both, but it is abundantly apparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together which party sux the most.

[Voltaire 5,506]

It was Lyndon Johnson and the Dems who started the mess by paying people to spend a lifetime sitting on their asses and such brilliantly designed policies as providing government funding only for single moms which prompted poor women to kick their husbands/baby daddies out of the house.

 

Fortunatly, the GOP/Clinton straightend a lot of that out in the 90s but the tradition of sitting on your ass and expecting a government check still remained intact. Still by the late 90s, the books ere balanced due to the delicate dancing act of Clinton/Dole/Gingrich and other responsible adults.

 

Then Deficit George cam along and jacked up more spending through the roof everywhere and cut taxes and blew up the deficit. When ###### Cheney declared that "deficts don't matter" the Republicans in Congress rejoiced and started enthusiastically going over how much deficit spending they could ring up.

 

Then Obama came along and didn't give a fock about ringing up massive deficits either. He was determined to outperform Deficit George.

 

But now everybody is serious about deficits and they're going to drive the country into economic Armageddon next week to prove it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It was Lyndon Johnson and the Dems who started the mess by paying people to spend a lifetime sitting on their asses and such brilliantly designed policies as providing government funding only for single moms which prompted poor women to kick their husbands/baby daddies out of the house.

 

 

 

Poverty rate prior to the "War on Poverty" = 14%

 

Poverty rate after Trillions of dollars spent to eradicate poverty = 14.3%

 

 

Money well spent. :wall:

[GettnHuge 2]

Mistake in that graph. 2001-2002 should be a split congress.

 

Republicans held the house, and the Senate for the first 6 months of the session until a Senator defected and Democrats retook the Senate.

 

They have that purple split about one step too late. But the result is the same. what do you expect it's the new york times

[IGotWorms 4,063]

But now everybody is serious about deficits and they're going to drive the country into economic Armageddon next week to prove it.

 

Yup, pretty much. Then as soon as they manage to drive the ni---, excuse me, "Bosama", out of the White House, they'll go right back to rejoicing over deficit spending.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Since the Moron never answers a direct question, let me address the "facts" worms presented in his OP:

 

 

 

1. Revenues increased dramatically when the Bush tax cuts took affect.

 

2. The Iraq war was winding down when Bush left office, thus the costs were also winding down. Let's ignore the FACT Obama promised to have us out of Iraq in 18 months after taking office. How much have we spent in Iraq from the date of his broken promise?

 

3. Obama dramatically increased our involvement in Afghanistan, and thus the cost of that war.

 

4. Obama has increased non-military discretionary spending around 25% since taking office.

 

5. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time highs under Obama, with the exception of WWII.

 

1. Yes, in part because of his tax cuts, and in part because he donkey punched the economy.

2. Bullshiot. That war wasn't winding down. Hell, Bush said it was "winding down" during the 2004 elections. Now I'm all for holding Obama accountable for breaking his promise, but anyone who believes that Bush would have had us out by now is wearing an ideological blindfold.

3. Yes. This one I'll agree with. I'll leave the debate of the worthiness of said surge to military minds above my pay grade, but it certainly did increase the cost. Of course, since most of these troops were merely sent from one war to the other, its not as if they weren't already running up costs before.

4. I dunno. I'll begrudgingly take your word on that one.

5. Maybe so. Of course, the reasons above (economy and wars he inherited) are a large part of why. That is the point of this thread.

 

It was Lyndon Johnson and the Dems who started the mess by paying people to spend a lifetime sitting on their asses and such brilliantly designed policies as providing government funding only for single moms which prompted poor women to kick their husbands/baby daddies out of the house.

 

 

I'll agree with the poor implementation of welfare laws but does anyone really believe this tripe? Like there was one day in the ghetto where all the daddy's were tearfully clinging to their children while their mothers drove them away for a government check? I'm betting most of these daddys either don't know they are daddies, or don't give a fock.

[jerryskids 7,162]

Yup, pretty much. Then as soon as they manage to drive the ni---, excuse me, "Bosama", out of the White House, they'll go right back to rejoicing over deficit spending.

 

Do you really believe that?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Do you really believe that?

 

Sure. Name the last republican administration that didn't deficit spend. Have to go back at least past Carter...

[BunnysBastatrds 2,676]

Do you really believe that?

 

 

It's all they have apparently. No one but the extreme believe defecit spending is a good/bad goal. Pretty fawking sad.

 

I'm punching the next piece of shat a-hole who tells me I'm a racist for not agreeing to the debt ceiling proposed by a party with virtually no fawking plan to get us out of this mess and proclaiming that the only way out is spending.

 

 

[jerryskids 7,162]

Sure. Name the last republican administration that didn't deficit spend. Have to go back at least past Carter...

 

I didn't ask about the past, unless you want me to talk about things like the dems opposing the civil rights movement. Do you think the rep party today would do it?

[Voltaire 5,506]

 

 

 

 

I'll agree with the poor implementation of welfare laws but does anyone really believe this tripe? Like there was one day in the ghetto where all the daddy's were tearfully clinging to their children while their mothers drove them away for a government check? I'm betting most of these daddys either don't know they are daddies, or don't give a fock.

 

What I'm hitting at is EXACTLY the problem and failures of the way welfare and aid benefits work in America. And not just AFDC but ALL government benefits programs: unemployment, medicare, etc.

 

Since money is tight, the government only has so many dollars they want to spend on any given entitlement program. So they always do is aim the money at those most in need. They put the money at the bottom and this creates a downward magnet.

 

You qualify for healthcare aid if you're desperatly poor, what if you have a sense of dignity and want to take a job cleaning office buildings? Well, now you have too much income to qualify for health care beneifts. There's only so much money to go to helping poor kids, so who gets the money? Single, unemployed mothers. There's only so much money for job training, who qualifies to get it? Ex-cons and drug addicts.

 

So what if you stay clean, stay out of prison, stay with you're baby momma, and want to work but only qualify for changing oil at Jiffy Lube? Fock You... the more of a deadbeat you are the better. Losers are the ones that get all the money. And that pulls everyone down. Poor people can't don't get on the ladder of upward mobility because the folks on the bottom two or three rungs are worse off than the people not on the ladder at all. If you're on the bottom rung, working a dead end job, WTF are you thinking? You're better off on the government gravy train.

 

Why work when all the people around you without jobs are doing just as well or better than you?

[BLS 315]

Let's dumb this down.

 

 

 

Aside from skin color and party affiliation....let's start with an easy question.

 

 

Let's name the DIFFERENCES between GWB and BHO.

 

 

 

I'll start.

 

1. One is from Texas. The other is from Keny....Hawai......Chicago.

[SUXBNME 1,611]

:popcorn:

 

You know that I you Worms, but getting into a debate with this is while engaging, not in your best interest.

 

Reasons:

1: RP has too much time on his hands to prove you wrong with credible links

2: JK (happy birfday, btw ) is way too intelligent and will break it down with thought provoking comments versus the usual one liners that we get here

3: If our resident Chinese communist is questioning you / your link, then you know that you're in trouble.

4: MDC comes out of his recent GOP persona to defend you

5: BLS..meh..All he cares about is the right to shoulder holster a tactical nuke in downtown Minneapolis. He don't count

 

Then again, keep fighting the good fight. Makes for good bored banter

[Voltaire 5,506]

Since the Moron never answers a direct question, let me address the "facts" worms presented in his OP:

 

1. Revenues increased dramatically when the Bush tax cuts took affect.

 

 

 

You always say this and it's not true.

 

Year GDP-US $ billion Total Direct Revenue-fed $ billion

2000 9951.5 2025.19 a

2001 10286.2 1991.08 a

2002 10642.3 1853.14 a

2003 11142.1 1782.31 a

2004 11867.8 1880.11 a

2005 12638.4 2153.61 a

2006 13398.9 2406.87 a

2007 14077.6 2567.98 a

2008 14369.1 2523.99 a

 

Legend:

a - actual reported

 

 

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

[SUXBNME 1,611]

You always say this and it's not true.

 

Year GDP-US $ billion Total Direct Revenue-fed $ billion

2000 9951.5 2025.19 a

2001 10286.2 1991.08 a

2002 10642.3 1853.14 a

2003 11142.1 1782.31 a

2004 11867.8 1880.11 a

2005 12638.4 2153.61 a

2006 13398.9 2406.87 a

2007 14077.6 2567.98 a

2008 14369.1 2523.99 a

 

Legend:

a - actual reported

 

 

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Like we are supposed to believe a link from usgovernmentanythingoranother.com?

Where's your head at, man?

 

Goodnight, bro

[IGotWorms 4,063]

4. Obama has increased non-military discretionary spending around 25% since taking office.

 

No offense, but I'm gonna need a link for that claim.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Do you really believe that?

 

Yes, I absolutely do believe that. Where were all these small government conservatives when Bush was in the White House? I know some of them existed but they were effectively marginalized by their own party. I believe the same thing will happen again when Republicans regain control of the presidency.

 

 

Anyway, let's look at the modern Republican presidencies:

 

George W. Bush - Blew up the deficit, as we all know

George H.W. Bush - I thought he was generally a good President, but he presided over the largest increase in U.S. debt until his son came along

Ronald Reagan - Pretty much invented deficit spending...his economic advisors openly said that deficit spending was a good thing

 

Also, take a look at this chart analyzing the federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. It shows that every Republican President since Richard Nixon presided over an increase in the debt as compared to the GDP:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt

 

So if history is any lesson, yes the Republicans will absolutely go back to blowing up the deficit as soon as they are back in power.

[Voltaire 5,506]

Yes, I absolutely do believe that. Where were all these small government conservatives when Bush was in the White House? I know some of them existed but they were effectively marginalized by their own party. I believe the same thing will happen again when Republicans regain control of the presidency.

 

 

Anyway, let's look at the modern Republican presidencies:

 

George W. Bush - Blew up the deficit, as we all know

George H.W. Bush - I thought he was generally a good President, but he presided over the largest increase in U.S. debt until his son came along

Ronald Reagan - Pretty much invented deficit spending...his economic advisors openly said that deficit spending was a good thing

 

Also, take a look at this chart analyzing the federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. It shows that every Republican President since Richard Nixon presided over an increase in the debt as compared to the GDP:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt

 

So if history is any lesson, yes the Republicans will absolutely go back to blowing up the deficit as soon as they are back in power.

 

We're seeing a different GOP now than we did a few years ago and I have to say, I really like what I'm seeing. I mean they're going to push the country into an economic abyss next week, but they're going to be doing it for a good cause.

 

During the Bush/DeLay/Frist years borrow-and-spending, Evilgelical, chickenhawk years of insanity, I wanted nothing to do with them. As they cheered everything decent about America turning to sh*t and swirling the toilet, I saw where this was heading, I couldn't take it, I left the country.

 

But then the Dems had their chance but focked it up too. Now we're seeing a different GOP. They've maintained their Bush-era, no tax increases ever, only tax cuts and more tax cuts all the time ever mantra. But there's a twist. The evilgelicals are less loud, they are seemingly less enthusiastic about diving into Islamic toilets, and now they are actually serious about deficit spending and balancing the budgets. That signifies huge improvements on all three fronts.

 

Considering how much the Dems suck, it may be getting time to re-evaluate the situation.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

We're seeing a different GOP now than we did a few years ago and I have to say, I really like what I'm seeing. I mean they're going to push the country into an economic abyss next week, but they're going to be doing it for a good cause.

 

During the Bush/DeLay/Frist years borrow-and-spending, Evilgelical, chickenhawk years of insanity, I wanted nothing to do with them. As they cheered everything decent about America turning to sh*t and swirling the toilet, I saw where this was heading, I couldn't take it, I left the country.

 

But then the Dems had their chance but focked it up too. Now we're seeing a different GOP. They've maintained their Bush-era, no tax increases ever, only tax cuts and more tax cuts all the time ever mantra. But there's a twist. The evilgelicals are less loud, they are seemingly less enthusiastic about diving into Islamic toilets, and now they are actually serious about deficit spending and balancing the budgets. That signifies huge improvements on all three fronts.

 

Considering how much the Dems suck, it may be getting time to re-evaluate the situation.

 

The GOP was all about fiscal conservatism during the Clinton years. Heck I know you've waxed poetic about Newt Gingrich's time as Speaker of the House numerous times. But then W became President and that all went out the window. What makes you think we won't see an exact repeat of that scenario next year or in 2016? Face it, the GOP is a much different party when it's in power than when it's out.

[Guest tacklesky]

Yes, I absolutely do believe that. Where were all these small government conservatives when Bush was in the White House? I know some of them existed but they were effectively marginalized by their own party. I believe the same thing will happen again when Republicans regain control of the presidency.

 

 

Anyway, let's look at the modern Republican presidencies:

 

George W. Bush - Blew up the deficit, as we all know

George H.W. Bush - I thought he was generally a good President, but he presided over the largest increase in U.S. debt until his son came along

Ronald Reagan - Pretty much invented deficit spending...his economic advisors openly said that deficit spending was a good thing

 

Also, take a look at this chart analyzing the federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. It shows that every Republican President since Richard Nixon presided over an increase in the debt as compared to the GDP:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt

 

So if history is any lesson, yes the Republicans will absolutely go back to blowing up the deficit as soon as they are back in power.

yup, that might be possible.

[Voltaire 5,506]

The GOP was all about fiscal conservatism during the Clinton years. Heck I know you've waxed poetic about Newt Gingrich's time as Speaker of the House numerous times. But then W became President and that all went out the window. What makes you think we won't see an exact repeat of that scenario next year or in 2016? Face it, the GOP is a much different party when it's in power than when it's out.

 

Yes, but what choice do we have?

 

It'll be really hard to pivot from deficit obsessing to not giving a fock. Although granted they did this very thing last time. What's different is they've got the country obsessed about deficits because the budget is so seriously out of whack. It's harder to stay disciplined to a balanced budget or get people excited about it when the budget is already balanced. It's not on people's mind unless it's broken.

 

I get the sense that they are really focking serious about cutting spending this time. It's like the Dems who took a lot of political heat and lost many seats to pass something that had been a priority for them for ages in Health Care reform. The Dems probably feel it was worth it. I get the sense that given the opportunity, this time, the GOP is ready to fall on the sword as well over slashing/eliminating entitlement programs. The backlash would be incredible and they'd lose lots of seats as well, but you get the sense if they get that opportunity, they'll be willing to do it.