Why Won't Republicans Answer This One Simple Question?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 7:13 AM GMT
    They ran on a platform almost exclusively about shrinking government and America's $14-trillion debt. And they got elected, sweeping the House with 63 seats and six Senate pick-ups. But since election day, ask any Republican in the House and Senate exactly which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit and they become back-peddling, rambling idiots, offering more spin than the washer/dryer section at Sears.

    Sunday morning's news shows, the first since Democrats received what President Obama called a "shellacking," were awash with partisan rhetoric about swollen debt, angry voters and "taking the country back." But substance was in short order.

    On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory hammered South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint to be specific in detailing the programs Republicans would slash, in particular, whether they'd touch defense and/or entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. DeMint was clearly uncomfortable with being put on the spot, and after repeated dodging and regurgitating endless talking points, Gregory persisted in pressing him for specifics. Again, DeMint fidgeted and cleared his throat so much I thought they'd wheel in an oxygen tank.

    It's like a disease. I've not seen one Republican leader, from DeMint to Rep. John Boehner to Rep. Eric Cantor to Sen. Mitch McConnell answer the "which specific programs would you cut" question with a straight answer. That's because their campaign platform was based on smoke and mirrors and disingenuous politicking. All designed to dupe a frustrated, angry and desperate electorate. The truth is, they won't cut defense spending, they won't touch Social Security and Medicare, and they won't touch veterans benefits, which they all admit.

    Let's put the numbers in perspective: the Unites States budget is $3.6-trillion. Approximately $2.2-trillion, or 61%, goes to fund Social Security, Medicare and defense. The remainder is split between the following: 14% to safety-net programs that aid struggling Americans (i.e. food stamps, child-care assistance and unemployment insurance); Vets/federal retirees 7%; transportation infrastructure 3%; education 3%; scientific and medical research 2%; and 5% misc. Another 6% goes toward interest payments on the debt. So if you take the major entitlements, defense and veterans off the table, as well as the debt service, that leaves about 16% in discretionary spending, or $576-billion available for cuts. Not a lot to work with especially given all the fiery campaign rhetoric about the GOP's magical fix on the economy through reduced spending and big cuts.

    Now here's the kicker: throw in a loss of $700-billion over 10 years which the government would lose in revenue if the Bush tax cuts are extended for those earning over $250,000 -- which the GOP is aggressively pushing for -- and that's a whole lotta fuzzy math.

    To be sure, Republicans are quite good a spin. After eight years of runaway spending during the Bush years, where the GOP controlled both the House and Senate for most of that time, they quite successfully convinced voters last week that they were the fiscally-responsible party who should again be given back the controls to rein in Obama's and the Democrats' excessive spending. Voters apparently have very short memories. And as the above numbers prove out, Republicans' promise of smaller government and cutting the deficit and debt is a promise they won't be able to keep.

    By: Andy Ostroy

    ::Maybe the voters who permitted this absurd result on Election day missed the constant bitch-slapping from the Bush years...who knew?::
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 7:52 AM GMT
    B787 saidThey ran on a platform almost exclusively about shrinking government and America's $14-trillion debt. And they got elected, sweeping the House with 63 seats and six Senate pick-ups. But since election day, ask any Republican in the House and Senate exactly which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit and they become back-peddling, rambling idiots, offering more spin than the washer/dryer section at Sears.

    Sunday morning's news shows, the first since Democrats received what President Obama called a "shellacking," were awash with partisan rhetoric about swollen debt, angry voters and "taking the country back." But substance was in short order.

    On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory hammered South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint to be specific in detailing the programs Republicans would slash, in particular, whether they'd touch defense and/or entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. DeMint was clearly uncomfortable with being put on the spot, and after repeated dodging and regurgitating endless talking points, Gregory persisted in pressing him for specifics. Again, DeMint fidgeted and cleared his throat so much I thought they'd wheel in an oxygen tank.

    It's like a disease. I've not seen one Republican leader, from DeMint to Rep. John Boehner to Rep. Eric Cantor to Sen. Mitch McConnell answer the "which specific programs would you cut" question with a straight answer. That's because their campaign platform was based on smoke and mirrors and disingenuous politicking. All designed to dupe a frustrated, angry and desperate electorate. The truth is, they won't cut defense spending, they won't touch Social Security and Medicare, and they won't touch veterans benefits, which they all admit.

    Let's put the numbers in perspective: the Unites States budget is $3.6-trillion. Approximately $2.2-trillion, or 61%, goes to fund Social Security, Medicare and defense. The remainder is split between the following: 14% to safety-net programs that aid struggling Americans (i.e. food stamps, child-care assistance and unemployment insurance); Vets/federal retirees 7%; transportation infrastructure 3%; education 3%; scientific and medical research 2%; and 5% misc. Another 6% goes toward interest payments on the debt. So if you take the major entitlements, defense and veterans off the table, as well as the debt service, that leaves about 16% in discretionary spending, or $576-billion available for cuts. Not a lot to work with especially given all the fiery campaign rhetoric about the GOP's magical fix on the economy through reduced spending and big cuts.

    Now here's the kicker: throw in a loss of $700-billion over 10 years which the government would lose in revenue if the Bush tax cuts are extended for those earning over $250,000 -- which the GOP is aggressively pushing for -- and that's a whole lotta fuzzy math.

    To be sure, Republicans are quite good a spin. After eight years of runaway spending during the Bush years, where the GOP controlled both the House and Senate for most of that time, they quite successfully convinced voters last week that they were the fiscally-responsible party who should again be given back the controls to rein in Obama's and the Democrats' excessive spending. Voters apparently have very short memories. And as the above numbers prove out, Republicans' promise of smaller government and cutting the deficit and debt is a promise they won't be able to keep.

    By: Andy Ostroy

    ::Maybe the voters who permitted this absurd result on Election day missed the constant bitch-slapping from the Bush years...who knew?::


    Republicans good at spin? Sorry, the "absurd result" was precisely what voters wanted - gridlock and it was a probationary period for Republicans to show they can come up with a plan to reduce spending and taxes while stopping the radical and rapid encroachment of government - particularly the healthcare reform act.

    To attempt to read further is simply foolish. Spending in the US has significant exceeded GDP growth for the last 10 years - yes including the Bush years but it has accelerated under the Obama Administration. It's as simple as that. Entitlement spending will also need to be reigned in - the alternative is draconian cuts that are coming in the UK. The voters seem to have known exactly what they were doing. If Republicans don't get the job done, expect to see a third party emerge in 2012. Polling already shows that even Republican tending voters don't like the job Republicans have done and side with the principles of the Tea Party but a substantial majority within the party and a simple majority broadly in the country. People like you forget that the Pork Busters, the predecessor to the Tea Party was started under the Bush Administration and in large part responsible for the fall of former Senate Leader Trent Lott.

    As a starting point to your specific question, have a look at the CBO's analysis of Rep Paul Ryan's roadmap (Ryan will be the chair of the Budget Committee):

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 11, 2010 11:23 AM GMT
    Time for the republicans to Put up or shut up

    Republicans have been feigning that they are deficit reducers .... here's your chance

    REDUCE ...............

    The Joint Commission on Deficit Reduction just gave you the groundwork
    They gave some really Draconian measures
    including increasing taxes
    ..... but the republicans don't have the balls and as usual they're lying through their teeth
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 3:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    B787 saidThey ran on a platform almost exclusively about shrinking government and America's $14-trillion debt. And they got elected, sweeping the House with 63 seats and six Senate pick-ups. But since election day, ask any Republican in the House and Senate exactly which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit and they become back-peddling, rambling idiots, offering more spin than the washer/dryer section at Sears.

    Sunday morning's news shows, the first since Democrats received what President Obama called a "shellacking," were awash with partisan rhetoric about swollen debt, angry voters and "taking the country back." But substance was in short order.

    On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory hammered South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint to be specific in detailing the programs Republicans would slash, in particular, whether they'd touch defense and/or entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. DeMint was clearly uncomfortable with being put on the spot, and after repeated dodging and regurgitating endless talking points, Gregory persisted in pressing him for specifics. Again, DeMint fidgeted and cleared his throat so much I thought they'd wheel in an oxygen tank.

    It's like a disease. I've not seen one Republican leader, from DeMint to Rep. John Boehner to Rep. Eric Cantor to Sen. Mitch McConnell answer the "which specific programs would you cut" question with a straight answer. That's because their campaign platform was based on smoke and mirrors and disingenuous politicking. All designed to dupe a frustrated, angry and desperate electorate. The truth is, they won't cut defense spending, they won't touch Social Security and Medicare, and they won't touch veterans benefits, which they all admit.

    Let's put the numbers in perspective: the Unites States budget is $3.6-trillion. Approximately $2.2-trillion, or 61%, goes to fund Social Security, Medicare and defense. The remainder is split between the following: 14% to safety-net programs that aid struggling Americans (i.e. food stamps, child-care assistance and unemployment insurance); Vets/federal retirees 7%; transportation infrastructure 3%; education 3%; scientific and medical research 2%; and 5% misc. Another 6% goes toward interest payments on the debt. So if you take the major entitlements, defense and veterans off the table, as well as the debt service, that leaves about 16% in discretionary spending, or $576-billion available for cuts. Not a lot to work with especially given all the fiery campaign rhetoric about the GOP's magical fix on the economy through reduced spending and big cuts.

    Now here's the kicker: throw in a loss of $700-billion over 10 years which the government would lose in revenue if the Bush tax cuts are extended for those earning over $250,000 -- which the GOP is aggressively pushing for -- and that's a whole lotta fuzzy math.

    To be sure, Republicans are quite good a spin. After eight years of runaway spending during the Bush years, where the GOP controlled both the House and Senate for most of that time, they quite successfully convinced voters last week that they were the fiscally-responsible party who should again be given back the controls to rein in Obama's and the Democrats' excessive spending. Voters apparently have very short memories. And as the above numbers prove out, Republicans' promise of smaller government and cutting the deficit and debt is a promise they won't be able to keep.

    By: Andy Ostroy

    ::Maybe the voters who permitted this absurd result on Election day missed the constant bitch-slapping from the Bush years...who knew?::


    Republicans good at spin? Sorry, the "absurd result" was precisely what voters wanted - gridlock and it was a probationary period for Republicans to show they can come up with a plan to reduce spending and taxes while stopping the radical and rapid encroachment of government - particularly the healthcare reform act.

    To attempt to read further is simply foolish. Spending in the US has significant exceeded GDP growth for the last 10 years - yes including the Bush years but it has accelerated under the Obama Administration. It's as simple as that. Entitlement spending will also need to be reigned in - the alternative is draconian cuts that are coming in the UK. The voters seem to have known exactly what they were doing. If Republicans don't get the job done, expect to see a third party emerge in 2012. Polling already shows that even Republican tending voters don't like the job Republicans have done and side with the principles of the Tea Party but a substantial majority within the party and a simple majority broadly in the country. People like you forget that the Pork Busters, the predecessor to the Tea Party was started under the Bush Administration and in large part responsible for the fall of former Senate Leader Trent Lott.

    As a starting point to your specific question, have a look at the CBO's analysis of Rep Paul Ryan's roadmap (Ryan will be the chair of the Budget Committee):

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf


    Very well put. The country is tired of democrats pushing into greater spending and government involvement. It's important to realize that the outcome of this election was an attempt to halt the radical agenda of the left and now they have to resort to the idea that nothing can really be cut.

    No matter what republicans propose should be cut, democrats will oppose it anyway so it doesn't make any difference.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Nov 11, 2010 3:29 PM GMT
    the GOPers can't name any changes because they have NO changes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 3:51 PM GMT
    mock, seeing as how you did this to another RJ member on another topic...


    "The purpose of this election was to halt the radical agenda of the left.."


    FAIL. Elections to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate are held every two years. That is the purpose of the mid-term election.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:01 PM GMT
    meninlove said mock, seeing as how you did this to another RJ member on another topic...


    "The purpose of this election was to halt the radical agenda of the left.."


    FAIL. Elections to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate are held every two years. That is the purpose of the mid-term election.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug


    lol, come on. Are you serious? I was referring to the outcome of the election -- not the literal purpose of the election.

    You know better than that, unless you're just trying to poke fun at me. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    Big gov't is money spent on others. Now we will see how small-gov't people react when the cuts touch them. There is no way to get the budget under control without doing some serious cutting.

    The report from the president's commission gives the stark truth of what will need to be done. It is already getting fierce push back. The politics of what need to be done will be too painful.

    I'd love to hear the president address the nation and say here's what has to be done. Are you willing to take it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    riddler78 said
    B787 saidThey ran on a platform almost exclusively about shrinking government and America's $14-trillion debt. And they got elected, sweeping the House with 63 seats and six Senate pick-ups. But since election day, ask any Republican in the House and Senate exactly which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit and they become back-peddling, rambling idiots, offering more spin than the washer/dryer section at Sears.

    Sunday morning's news shows, the first since Democrats received what President Obama called a "shellacking," were awash with partisan rhetoric about swollen debt, angry voters and "taking the country back." But substance was in short order.

    On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory hammered South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint to be specific in detailing the programs Republicans would slash, in particular, whether they'd touch defense and/or entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. DeMint was clearly uncomfortable with being put on the spot, and after repeated dodging and regurgitating endless talking points, Gregory persisted in pressing him for specifics. Again, DeMint fidgeted and cleared his throat so much I thought they'd wheel in an oxygen tank.

    It's like a disease. I've not seen one Republican leader, from DeMint to Rep. John Boehner to Rep. Eric Cantor to Sen. Mitch McConnell answer the "which specific programs would you cut" question with a straight answer. That's because their campaign platform was based on smoke and mirrors and disingenuous politicking. All designed to dupe a frustrated, angry and desperate electorate. The truth is, they won't cut defense spending, they won't touch Social Security and Medicare, and they won't touch veterans benefits, which they all admit.

    Let's put the numbers in perspective: the Unites States budget is $3.6-trillion. Approximately $2.2-trillion, or 61%, goes to fund Social Security, Medicare and defense. The remainder is split between the following: 14% to safety-net programs that aid struggling Americans (i.e. food stamps, child-care assistance and unemployment insurance); Vets/federal retirees 7%; transportation infrastructure 3%; education 3%; scientific and medical research 2%; and 5% misc. Another 6% goes toward interest payments on the debt. So if you take the major entitlements, defense and veterans off the table, as well as the debt service, that leaves about 16% in discretionary spending, or $576-billion available for cuts. Not a lot to work with especially given all the fiery campaign rhetoric about the GOP's magical fix on the economy through reduced spending and big cuts.

    Now here's the kicker: throw in a loss of $700-billion over 10 years which the government would lose in revenue if the Bush tax cuts are extended for those earning over $250,000 -- which the GOP is aggressively pushing for -- and that's a whole lotta fuzzy math.

    To be sure, Republicans are quite good a spin. After eight years of runaway spending during the Bush years, where the GOP controlled both the House and Senate for most of that time, they quite successfully convinced voters last week that they were the fiscally-responsible party who should again be given back the controls to rein in Obama's and the Democrats' excessive spending. Voters apparently have very short memories. And as the above numbers prove out, Republicans' promise of smaller government and cutting the deficit and debt is a promise they won't be able to keep.

    By: Andy Ostroy

    ::Maybe the voters who permitted this absurd result on Election day missed the constant bitch-slapping from the Bush years...who knew?::


    Republicans good at spin? Sorry, the "absurd result" was precisely what voters wanted - gridlock and it was a probationary period for Republicans to show they can come up with a plan to reduce spending and taxes while stopping the radical and rapid encroachment of government - particularly the healthcare reform act.

    To attempt to read further is simply foolish. Spending in the US has significant exceeded GDP growth for the last 10 years - yes including the Bush years but it has accelerated under the Obama Administration. It's as simple as that. Entitlement spending will also need to be reigned in - the alternative is draconian cuts that are coming in the UK. The voters seem to have known exactly what they were doing. If Republicans don't get the job done, expect to see a third party emerge in 2012. Polling already shows that even Republican tending voters don't like the job Republicans have done and side with the principles of the Tea Party but a substantial majority within the party and a simple majority broadly in the country. People like you forget that the Pork Busters, the predecessor to the Tea Party was started under the Bush Administration and in large part responsible for the fall of former Senate Leader Trent Lott.

    As a starting point to your specific question, have a look at the CBO's analysis of Rep Paul Ryan's roadmap (Ryan will be the chair of the Budget Committee):

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf


    Very well put. The country is tired of democrats pushing into greater spending and government involvement. The purpose of this election was to halt the radical agenda of the left and now they have the temerity to pretend as though there's really nothing that can be cut and republicans are just bluffing.

    No matter what republicans propose should be cut, democrats will oppose it anyway so it doesn't make any difference.


    The primary problem with riddler's analysis is that the Tea Party's entire platform is contradictory. They want the government to continue the social safety net programs a la Medicare, Social Security, while reducing the deficit and reducing taxes. Those three things cannot all happen at once. There is simply no math that will support it.

    And, mock, there is no "radical agenda of the left." Please give up this silly idea that Obama is anything more than a typical conservative democrat. If he were, or Pelosi et al were "radical leftists" then Bank of America would be the ACTUAL Bank of America and half of Wall Street would be trading cigarettes for their lives in prison, not posting soaring profits and enjoying historic bonuses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:12 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said mock, seeing as how you did this to another RJ member on another topic...


    "The purpose of this election was to halt the radical agenda of the left.."


    FAIL. Elections to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate are held every two years. That is the purpose of the mid-term election.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug


    lol, come on. Are you serious? I was referring to the outcome of the election -- not the literal purpose of the election.

    You know better than that, unless you're just trying to poke fun at me. icon_twisted.gif


    No, I thought I'd give a taste of what you did to an RJ poster that didn't like tofu. Think!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:13 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 saidBig gov't is money spent on others. Now we will see how small-gov't people react when the cuts touch them. There is no way to get the budget under control without doing some serious cutting.

    The report from the president's commission gives the stark truth of what will need to be done. It is already getting fierce push back. The politics of what need to be done will be too painful.

    I'd love to hear the president address the nation and say here's what has to be done. Are you willing to take it?


    What the president needs to say is "we will raise taxes in the short term" and ensure the viability of Medicare and SS for the generations to come. The rest of the recommendations aren't bad (e.g eliminating mortgage deductions on second properties) and I think could garner widespread support.

    But you can't 95% of the country, we're going to cut your benefits and services that you've paid into your whole adult lives while giving a 10 point tax cut to Bill Gates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:14 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidTime for the republicans to Put up or shut up


    Right.... Why haven't the Republicans cut the debt already?

    (Oh yeah.... it's because they don't take over the House until January)

    I'm pretty sure you liberals will have plenty to screech about come Spring of 2011 when the Republican controlled House actually starts passing spending cut bills.... So just chill out for a few months, relax, eat some turkey and stuffing and pumpkin pie, buy some Christmas gifts for your loved ones..... January will be here soon!


    And yet you manage to blame Obama and Pelosi for things undertaken by the Bush administration... Funny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:17 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said mock, seeing as how you did this to another RJ member on another topic...


    "The purpose of this election was to halt the radical agenda of the left.."


    FAIL. Elections to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate are held every two years. That is the purpose of the mid-term election.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug


    lol, come on. Are you serious? I was referring to the outcome of the election -- not the literal purpose of the election.

    You know better than that, unless you're just trying to poke fun at me. icon_twisted.gif


    No, I thought I'd give a taste of what you did to an RJ poster that didn't like tofu. Think!


    You mean when I pointed out that tofu doesn't have a taste so he inaccurately referred to it as tasting bad? Not sure how there's any similarity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:18 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    riddler78 said
    B787 saidThey ran on a platform almost exclusively about shrinking government and America's $14-trillion debt. And they got elected, sweeping the House with 63 seats and six Senate pick-ups. But since election day, ask any Republican in the House and Senate exactly which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit and they become back-peddling, rambling idiots, offering more spin than the washer/dryer section at Sears.

    Sunday morning's news shows, the first since Democrats received what President Obama called a "shellacking," were awash with partisan rhetoric about swollen debt, angry voters and "taking the country back." But substance was in short order.

    On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory hammered South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint to be specific in detailing the programs Republicans would slash, in particular, whether they'd touch defense and/or entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. DeMint was clearly uncomfortable with being put on the spot, and after repeated dodging and regurgitating endless talking points, Gregory persisted in pressing him for specifics. Again, DeMint fidgeted and cleared his throat so much I thought they'd wheel in an oxygen tank.

    It's like a disease. I've not seen one Republican leader, from DeMint to Rep. John Boehner to Rep. Eric Cantor to Sen. Mitch McConnell answer the "which specific programs would you cut" question with a straight answer. That's because their campaign platform was based on smoke and mirrors and disingenuous politicking. All designed to dupe a frustrated, angry and desperate electorate. The truth is, they won't cut defense spending, they won't touch Social Security and Medicare, and they won't touch veterans benefits, which they all admit.

    Let's put the numbers in perspective: the Unites States budget is $3.6-trillion. Approximately $2.2-trillion, or 61%, goes to fund Social Security, Medicare and defense. The remainder is split between the following: 14% to safety-net programs that aid struggling Americans (i.e. food stamps, child-care assistance and unemployment insurance); Vets/federal retirees 7%; transportation infrastructure 3%; education 3%; scientific and medical research 2%; and 5% misc. Another 6% goes toward interest payments on the debt. So if you take the major entitlements, defense and veterans off the table, as well as the debt service, that leaves about 16% in discretionary spending, or $576-billion available for cuts. Not a lot to work with especially given all the fiery campaign rhetoric about the GOP's magical fix on the economy through reduced spending and big cuts.

    Now here's the kicker: throw in a loss of $700-billion over 10 years which the government would lose in revenue if the Bush tax cuts are extended for those earning over $250,000 -- which the GOP is aggressively pushing for -- and that's a whole lotta fuzzy math.

    To be sure, Republicans are quite good a spin. After eight years of runaway spending during the Bush years, where the GOP controlled both the House and Senate for most of that time, they quite successfully convinced voters last week that they were the fiscally-responsible party who should again be given back the controls to rein in Obama's and the Democrats' excessive spending. Voters apparently have very short memories. And as the above numbers prove out, Republicans' promise of smaller government and cutting the deficit and debt is a promise they won't be able to keep.

    By: Andy Ostroy

    ::Maybe the voters who permitted this absurd result on Election day missed the constant bitch-slapping from the Bush years...who knew?::


    Republicans good at spin? Sorry, the "absurd result" was precisely what voters wanted - gridlock and it was a probationary period for Republicans to show they can come up with a plan to reduce spending and taxes while stopping the radical and rapid encroachment of government - particularly the healthcare reform act.

    To attempt to read further is simply foolish. Spending in the US has significant exceeded GDP growth for the last 10 years - yes including the Bush years but it has accelerated under the Obama Administration. It's as simple as that. Entitlement spending will also need to be reigned in - the alternative is draconian cuts that are coming in the UK. The voters seem to have known exactly what they were doing. If Republicans don't get the job done, expect to see a third party emerge in 2012. Polling already shows that even Republican tending voters don't like the job Republicans have done and side with the principles of the Tea Party but a substantial majority within the party and a simple majority broadly in the country. People like you forget that the Pork Busters, the predecessor to the Tea Party was started under the Bush Administration and in large part responsible for the fall of former Senate Leader Trent Lott.

    As a starting point to your specific question, have a look at the CBO's analysis of Rep Paul Ryan's roadmap (Ryan will be the chair of the Budget Committee):

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf


    Very well put. The country is tired of democrats pushing into greater spending and government involvement. The purpose of this election was to halt the radical agenda of the left and now they have the temerity to pretend as though there's really nothing that can be cut and republicans are just bluffing.

    No matter what republicans propose should be cut, democrats will oppose it anyway so it doesn't make any difference.


    The primary problem with riddler's analysis is that the Tea Party's entire platform is contradictory. They want the government to continue the social safety net programs a la Medicare, Social Security, while reducing the deficit and reducing taxes. Those three things cannot all happen at once. There is simply no math that will support it.

    And, mock, there is no "radical agenda of the left." Please give up this silly idea that Obama is anything more than a typical conservative democrat. If he were, or Pelosi et al were "radical leftists" then Bank of America would be the ACTUAL Bank of America and half of Wall Street would be trading cigarettes for their lives in prison, not posting soaring profits and enjoying historic bonuses.


    The attempted government takeover of healthcare is radical enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:19 PM GMT
    Go back and look at the topic. I'm not the only one that feels the way I do. There was no need to call his post a fail. Sheez, manners, much?


    Now, back on topic ...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:28 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said

    The primary problem with riddler's analysis is that the Tea Party's entire platform is contradictory. They want the government to continue the social safety net programs a la Medicare, Social Security, while reducing the deficit and reducing taxes. Those three things cannot all happen at once. There is simply no math that will support it.

    And, mock, there is no "radical agenda of the left." Please give up this silly idea that Obama is anything more than a typical conservative democrat. If he were, or Pelosi et al were "radical leftists" then Bank of America would be the ACTUAL Bank of America and half of Wall Street would be trading cigarettes for their lives in prison, not posting soaring profits and enjoying historic bonuses.


    The attempted government takeover of healthcare is radical enough.


    There isn't nor has there ever been an "attempted government takeover of healthcare." HCR is primarily composed of moderate reforms previously championed by Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:28 PM GMT
    meninlove said Go back and look at the topic. I'm not the only one that feels the way I do. There was no need to call his post a fail. Sheez, manners, much?


    Now, back on topic ...


    Yes, back on topic.

    p.s. I apologized in the other thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:38 PM GMT
    Cutting the mortgage interest deduction wont fly cuz too many people bought their houses figuring that into their finances for affording the house. Without it, the housing mess will become even worse. Plus it isnt fair to do that to them, imho.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:45 PM GMT

    SB, This has nothing to do with political topics, but everything to do with being unnecessarily harsh to someone without a mean word to say.

    "I do hope you two will direct your RJ "manners policing" to publicly flogging RJ members on the left who are far more crude, rude and crass than mocktwinkie."

    ...and here's something to consider; slapping at men that have no mean words for you is tacky and affects your credibility. Your attacks on Metta8 are an example of this.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said Go back and look at the topic. I'm not the only one that feels the way I do. There was no need to call his post a fail. Sheez, manners, much?


    I do hope you two will direct your RJ "manners policing" to publicly flogging RJ members on the left who are far more crude, rude and crass than mocktwinkie.

    Here's a few suspects that you can begin to monitor:

    Webster-the-Devil
    Art_Deco
    rnch
    jprichva
    Otterjoq


    Thank you for performing this very valuable service.


    OK I laughed out loud at this one. Too true with the bizarre and disproportionate sense of moral indignation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:48 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    SB, This has nothing to do with political topics, but everything to do with being unnecessarily harsh to someone without a mean word to say.

    "I do hope you two will direct your RJ "manners policing" to publicly flogging RJ members on the left who are far more crude, rude and crass than mocktwinkie."

    ...and here's something to consider; slapping at men that have no mean words for you is tacky and affects your credibility. Your attacks on Metta8 are an example of this.

    -Doug



    I read that supposed "attack" on metta - and I didn't see it. Yes, the post was a bit cluttered/mealy mouthed and yes sb criticized him for it but it was far from the personal attack you make it out to be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 4:48 PM GMT
    That's because you're not paying attention, riddler, and you should have seen the stuff pumped out at metta8, not to mention chasing him about the forums when Metta was up for MOTD.

    And mock just apologized about what he said to that other guy, which makes Mock a hero in my books.

    Thanks Mock!

    respectfully, -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 5:01 PM GMT
    Back on point for a moment. The OP noted that there would be $700b "lost" by government because of the Bush tax cuts - despite the fact that Obama and the Democrats had committed to renewing at least all except for the taxes on the most wealthy. The problem with this is that tax cuts to those supposed rich account for less than half of those "lost" revenues:

    From Politifact's fisking of Nancy Pelosi's talking points as parroted by the OP and others (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/16/nancy-pelosi/tax-cuts-rich-deficit/):
    "The Tax Policy Center analyzed that plan and found that if Obama raised the rates on that group, it would generate roughly $350 billion over 10 years. Conversely, leaving in place the Bush tax cuts for everyone else would come to $850 billion over 10 years. "

    Further, it is telling that there are those who view tax cuts as expenses or "losses" by any government. In this bizarre world it is as if government is the benevolent entity that allows you to make what you earn instead of the other way around that it acts and thrives based on the will of its people.

    It's true though there just hasn't been enough of a discussion about entitlement spending - and this is something that Republicans will have to grapple. I do think however that whatever party makes a focused effort to reduce government spending in areas of recent and radical overreach - that it makes an easier case that costs have to be shared by all.

    The alternative is far far worse - when the easier choices are taken away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2010 5:11 PM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gif

    You haven't been paying attention either, or you'd know your 1st point is 'incorrect' as you like to post so often in a rather prissy way, dear sir.

    You weren't the only one that slapped Metta8.
    Your 2nd point is also 'incorrect'.


    EDIT: third point reference removed - trying to do this and make breakfast for my man at the same time!