Comments about ‘White House agrees to $6.5B more in budget cuts’

6.5 billion out of deficit of 1.5 Trillion. How can the Federal Government survive?

"Democrats stand ready to meet the Republicans halfway on this," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "That would be fair"

queen nancy certainly did not have that attitude when she was speaker. her attitude then was, "we won the election, so go along or get out of the way"

@Lost in DC: And now that's the republicans' theme! Read this article closely and you'll see, 1, it's posturing politics as usual; and 2, the republicans are trying as hard as they can to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Republican slogan: Let's take all the help away from the poor, keep them uneducated, as we need those people to clean our houses!

xscribe,
negotiations between the white house, the house of reps, and clown prince harry are nothing near like the attitude queen nancy had. I'm sorry you can;t see the difference.

I think you're confused on who believes in keeing the poor poor. The dems created an underclass who are dependent on the dems in the government to take care of them so they will vote to re-elect the dems. If the poor were able raise themselves out of their dependent nature, the dems would lose an important constituency.

I think the DSNews makes the titles change on purpose on this website.

On the general DSnews website the title is:
'GOP: New Obama budget-cutting offer too small'

And yet, when you click on the article it changes too:
'White House agrees to $6.5B more in budget cuts'

Which is it?

Here's my response to the GOP complaints about debt...

*'Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt' - Posted by Mark Knoller - CBSNews - 03/04/10
Line:
'With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.'

In case you were not aware, that is double what the debt was previously.

Also:

*'How the House GOP promise to cut $100b became $32b' - By Luke Russert - NBC - 02/03/11

@Lost in DC: I actually agree with your last sentence, but please explain how the poor can "raise themselves out of their dependent nature" without a little help. We can argue until we're blue in the face about who wants the poor to be poor, but they cannot overcome what they do not have without a little help. I believe if you and I were to sit down and talk about this - can't be done through a limited forum like this - we would actually agree about what the final outcome needs to be for the poor, which needs to included taking away entitlements at some point. However, it is not a problem that can be solved overnight; and taking away what little they have now is not a good solution. There is no American dream for the poor, and that needs to change. By the way, I am about as liberal as they come - I know it's hard to believe - but I would agree that the poor are typically more prone to vote for the dems. However, I would probably disagree as to your theory as to why that is so, all the way back to slavery.