Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:26 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/?p=137368

When we said we'd cut spending by $100B... that was a "hypothetical." According to Mike Pence (R-IN), in an interview on that liberal hack channel Fox News, anyone who calls the GOP out on their $100B promise is just "number crunching."
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:35 pm

I really wish they would cut spending by 1,000 billion/year.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:06 pm

We're going to broadcast these negotiations on CSPAN - Obama

Anyone who calls him out is just another racist -- liberal media
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:11 pm

B-b-b-but libruls!
- kiryan, in every thread
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:17 pm

When I post a thread you respond with "but Bush, but Republicans."

Turn about is fair play.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm

So you're not going to actually talk about Republicans failing to deliver on their campaign promises, then? Just going to dodge and deflect and try to place blame?

I don't blame you... Republican politics aren't defensible in the slightest. All you can hope to do is distract your critics.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Corth » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:55 pm

100 Billion would simply be a good start. It really is more of the same. I would love to see Republicans carry through on their promises one of these days. Sometimes the option is to either vote for Republicans and hope they will at least try to do the right thing for once, or vote for Dems knowing they're goal is to do the wrong thing. Not much of an option.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:20 pm

What can I say, They may have mastered liberal strategy.

But getting back to your point, I'm disappointed in what looks like a step back from the firm committments they've been touting. I think however the new rule making and proposals are going to literally cut government spending. Especially the one that says if you cut here it goes into a special account and can't just be respent on a differnet program. I sure as hell don't want people cutting education then turning around and spending those savings on DHS and calling it cutting the budget.

If GOP succeeds in restoring the 2008 spending levels, that'll be great. If they choke off funds for healthcare, that will be even better. If they do not raise the debt ceiling great and force the government to make its debt committments and skip out on its optional spending great like DHS, EPA, Education state department, IRS, great 26 billion for healthcare IT GREAT.

I think we will see 100 billion in cuts, and not of the "created or saved" type that Democrats cling to.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Kindi » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:25 pm

if republicans act like liberals, and liberals act like socialists, what's the most comfortable type of shoe to wear while standing all day?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:25 pm

kiryan wrote:What can I say, They may have mastered liberal strategy.


Kiryan, do you have the slightest contact with reality? Failing to keep campaign promises predates Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals by a long shot. Making promises and not keeping them was probably invented about 5 minutes after the concept of voting.

Get the fuck over believing Democrats are evil.


I think we will see 100 billion in cuts, and not of the "created or saved" type that Democrats cling to.


Good luck with that.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:28 pm

Noble words from one who spent the last 5 years supporting a liberal base who argued that George W Bush and the GOP were literally the devil and wanted to kill grandma and little babies by denying them healthcare.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:33 pm

We're atheists, Kiryan. We don't believe in the devil.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:05 pm

Ragorn wrote:http://thinkprogress.org/?p=137368

When we said we'd cut spending by $100B... that was a "hypothetical." According to Mike Pence (R-IN), in an interview on that liberal hack channel Fox News, anyone who calls the GOP out on their $100B promise is just "number crunching."

Dumbass, their pledge was a plan to eliminate 100 billion a year in spending. Clearly, the people only gave them the house of representatives.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:15 pm

They promised to cut spending by $100B a year, and then when they got called on it, they called the $100B number a "hypothetical." They didn't try and fail, they didn't try and get stonewalled by the Democrats... they got elected and shed their promise completely.

Dumbass.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:28 pm

Ragorn wrote:They promised to cut spending by $100B a year, and then when they got called on it, they called the $100B number a "hypothetical." They didn't try and fail, they didn't try and get stonewalled by the Democrats... they got elected and shed their promise completely.

Dumbass.

Read it: http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/do ... merica.pdf

It's a roadmap and an agenda. How do you not get that?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:41 pm

"We offer a plan to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government.
With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, prebailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt."

Looks like they're offering a plan to me, Ragorn. A plan that we only partially accepted by only giving the Republicans the House.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:04 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone

^ Promise

Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.

^ Failure to deliver on promise.

On Tuesday, aides to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Boehner blamed Democrats’ failure to pass the regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011 for forcing Republicans to reduce their goal to perhaps $50 billion to $60 billion.

^ B-b-b-b-but libruls, the usual excuse when Republicans fail at something.

You have control the House. You made a promise. Now fulfill it, and stop blaming the minority party for your failings.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:13 pm

I don't get it. How does not passing the appropriations bill last year not allow them to save 100 billion a year going forward?

I still expect them to cut 100 billion a year from spending. I'm not accepting a "best effort" unless its a really damn close, actually real and not imaginary savings, best effort.

If they fail, I'll be right next to you criticizing them. Still will vote for Republicans, but will criticize them.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:17 pm

The appropriations bill would have raised military spending, which the Republicans then thought they could cut. The bill raising spending didn't get passed, so the Republicans didn't have as much fat to trim in their proposed spending cuts. Instead of finding other ways to realize cost savings, they just chose to blame the Democrats for not increasing spending and giving them projects to cut.

:facepalm:

In other news, the Democrats defeated an appropriations bill that would have raised military spending.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:33 pm

I really have to say that some conservatives really need to step off the SNAP (commonly known as the foodstamp program). Yes, it's government cheese, yes it's commonly abused, but it really is one of the few effective social welfare programs and it really doesn't cost a lot of money. Hell, if you cut the program entirely, you probably wouldn't notice the difference.

Focus on other shit first.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:43 pm

Oh I see.

Well I'll give them a pass here then on campaign promises (although it was stupid to plan on cuts for somethign that hasn't been spent yet). Feel free to call me a hippocrite. They also promised to repeal healthcare, it wouldn't be a failed campaign promise if Dems had repealed it themselves during the lame duck. That is pedantic nitpicking.

and while 100 billion is a nice number, but I thought that was a starting point so I am NOT sympathetic if they want to say we cut 100 billion (60 plus the 40 dems didn't appropriate) we're done. No if they got to 100 billion they should keep looking, I was hoping 100 billion was the starting point, not the ending point.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:48 pm

kiryan wrote:Oh I see.

Well I'll give them a pass here then on campaign promises (although it was stupid to plan on cuts for somethign that hasn't been spent yet). Feel free to call me a hippocrite. They also promised to repeal healthcare, it wouldn't be a failed campaign promise if Dems had repealed it themselves during the lame duck. That is pedantic nitpicking.

and while 100 billion is a nice number, but I thought that was a starting point so I am NOT sympathetic if they want to say we cut 100 billion (60 plus the 40 dems didn't appropriate) we're done. No if they got to 100 billion they should keep looking, I was hoping 100 billion was the starting point, not the ending point.

The Republicans were only selling a plan that Americans only halfway bought.

Granted, we should be pushing our Congress to cut spending by at least that much ANYWAY.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:23 pm

kiryan wrote:The Republicans were only selling a plan that Americans only halfway bought.

No, a more accurate analogy is, the Republicans were selling 100 billion chickens before the hens even finished laying the eggs. They concocted that number based on a series of proposed bills that hadn't even been enacted yet.

However, they didn't tell you (the American public) that. They said "we will cut $100B of spending in the first year," and then they didn't.

Well I'll give them a pass here then on campaign promises (although it was stupid to plan on cuts for somethign that hasn't been spent yet). Feel free to call me a hippocrite.

Yeah, I know you're a hypocrite kiryan. If the Democrats had done this, you would have started a thread all up in arms. Because they're Republicans, you'll give them a pass and think no more of it.

I really, truly hope that the Republicans in the House can be the "party of small government" that Corth thinks they are. I vote Democratic because there are too many issues on the GOP ticket that I could never support, but I would have no problem at all with Congress taking the red pen to the federal budget. President Clinton did an excellent job of keeping spending under control. I'm hoping that in two weeks, after the health care repeal fails, the bipartisan government can finally put the health care issue to rest and start focusing on the rest of the economy.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:49 pm

I love how Clinton gets credit for the Republicans forcing him to balance the budget.

Guilty as charged, I would complain about Obama failing to live up to his campaign promises, specifically because they were so incredibly naieve and impossible in the first place. I'm not going to defend them, which is different than what the left does. Guantanamo, still not closed, indefinite detention still happening, armed troops still in iraq.

If you want to talk about how stupid republicans are then I'll agree. What a bunch of damn idiots... promising to cut spending that hasn't been enacted yet? What kind of rucking fetarded is that? Instead of saying we'll cut 60 billion a year and then getting 100 billion, they put out a number that was arbitrary and political in nature and sold it. I do think they should find more money to cut because that is what they promised.

However, like I'm not going to go ape shit on them day 14 since they've had power. They said they'd cut 100 b in the first year. They've got 350 or so days to make good on that.

http://www.politico.com/arena/ Today's arena discusses Obama's support for military tribunals. Every response talks about Obama's realization that the reality was tribunals are the best way despite having criticized them as a candidate/senator. Couple of posts blame legislation for taking away civilian options.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:23 pm

The difference is that Obama TRIED to do something he thought he could do, and was overruled by Congress. He actually signed an executive order 2 days after his inauguration, but it was never carried out for various reasons:

"Jan. 22, 2009: With the official flourish of a newly-inaugurated president and a platoon of retired generals for a living backdrop, as one of his very first official Oval Office acts, Barack Obama signs an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility within one year:"

Meanwhile, Republicans promised to cut something that didn't even exist. I might as well promise to stop the alien menace from kidnapping your children. What? There are no aliens? Ok, I succeeded! Yay!

Not going to criticize the Republicans after 14 days? That's funny, because I'm pretty sure you were criticizing Obama the same day he took office.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:42 pm

kiryan wrote:I love how Clinton gets credit for the Republicans forcing him to balance the budget.

Revisionist history is fun.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:01 pm

Sarvis wrote:The difference is that Obama TRIED to do something he thought he could do, and was overruled by Congress. He actually signed an executive order 2 days after his inauguration, but it was never carried out for various reasons:


So what you're saying is he didn't actually know what he was doing and he was talking out his ass? Or are you saying he was just an ineffective and impotent executive despite having 60 votes in the senate?

Sarvis wrote:Meanwhile, Republicans promised to cut something that didn't even exist. I might as well promise to stop the alien menace from kidnapping your children. What? There are no aliens? Ok, I succeeded! Yay!


You're thinking of created or saved. At least the have the intellectual integrity not to claim they did cut 100 billion.

Sarvis wrote:Not going to criticize the Republicans after 14 days? That's funny, because I'm pretty sure you were criticizing Obama the same day he took office.


Yes but thats because he deserved it. ;)
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:09 pm

kiryan wrote:
Sarvis wrote:The difference is that Obama TRIED to do something he thought he could do, and was overruled by Congress. He actually signed an executive order 2 days after his inauguration, but it was never carried out for various reasons:


So what you're saying is he didn't actually know what he was doing and he was talking out his ass? Or are you saying he was just an ineffective and impotent executive despite having 60 votes in the senate?


I forgot to link the article, but when it came down to it the Democrats actually voted against even allowing a facility to exist in the US. Basically his own party turned on him for some reason.


Impotent? Sure, if you wish. It's the way our system is set up right? If we want potent leaders who can do anything they want, we just need to scrap the constitution.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:12 pm

That reason was because he was wrong. At least thats how I'm going to call it!

Thats funny, Obama is impotent, but Bush was a walking dictatorial disaster who could not be stopped. They had the same job if i recall correctly.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:17 pm

kiryan wrote:That reason was because he was wrong. At least thats how I'm going to call it!


Of course you would.

Thats funny, Obama is impotent, but Bush was a walking dictatorial disaster who could not be stopped. They had the same job if i recall correctly.


Walking disaster, yes. Seriously though are you kidding? We always knew and claimed he was just Cheney's puppet.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:39 pm

Also funny how you don't address whether or not he was simply wrong or incompetent on day 1.

That does seem to be the prevailing belief, he was naieve and has finally figured out what it takes to be POTUS. Only took better part of 1.5 years.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Kifle » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:37 am

Sarvis wrote:Impotent? Sure, if you wish. It's the way our system is set up right? If we want potent leaders who can do anything they want, we just need to scrap the constitution.


Well, they did try it with the PATRIOT act. And Rumsfeld was a fan of attempted denial of habius corpus.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:23 am

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02 ... n-dollars/

"But the week they took office, they said that given that fiscal 2011 was already partly over so they would cut more like $60 billion."

"It fulfills the pledge because we said in a year's time we were going to cut spending by $100 billion. As you know, we are five twelfths of the way through the fiscal year by the time the expiration occurs. We will be proposing this again in the next fiscal year, and if you look at it in an annualized basis, I assure you it will be over a $100 billion."

Seems like everything is in order, AND YET:

"Apparently, the GOP freshmen didn't buy this fuzzy math. Wednesday morning after the House Appropriations Committee revealed $40 billion in cuts the freshmen and Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscal conservatives, balked and demanded more. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers went back to the cutting table and produced $76 billion in cuts. That still wasn't good enough."

"So, today Rogers announced they'd found the full $100 billion in cuts and they will move forward with this bill."

Five twelfths of a year ahead of schedule. And it's about damned time. I hope this will pass.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:19 am

In a nutshell that summarizes why the democrats are so fearful of the 'teabaggers'. They actually are committed to cutting government.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:37 pm

Corth wrote:In a nutshell that summarizes why the democrats are so fearful of the 'teabaggers'. They actually are committed to cutting government.

It is pretty scary stuff. But you do have to remember something Corth. When you promote competition, you're promoting the stronger, faster, and smarter gaining more wealth and being more powerful.

Our world must also have sufficient room for the meek, the timid, and the dull in order to have a high functioning society. Someone has to deliver my pizza AND be happy about it (just barely happy enough to put on a forced smile, I don't need them to actually be happy).
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Kindi » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:52 pm

the story of harrison bergeron always struck a cord with me

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:26 pm

That was a wierd story. I get what they are trying to say, but I can't say it really resonates with me. I don't think I'd ever recommend anyone read it, but I might summarize it for them.

How does it strike a cord with you?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 pm

kiryan wrote:That was a wierd story. I get what they are trying to say, but I can't say it really resonates with me. I don't think I'd ever recommend anyone read it, but I might summarize it for them.


Dude, it's like a page long... it practically IS a summary.

And I'd think you'd like the message: The government trying to make everyone equal only makes things worse, in the long run.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:48 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opini ... yt&emc=rss

Now this is interesting. Everybody knows that most people support "spending cuts" but don't actually want to give up any of the benefits they enjoy courtesy of the federal government. In fact, when most people talk about cuts in spending, they like to rattle off a list of programs they don't use as "prime candidates" for reduction. Rich Republicans want to crack down on welfare, flyover state yokels rail against public transportation subsidies, young people shake their fists at Medicare, etc. Very, very few voters are actually willing to tighten their belts and pay more out of pocket costs to help reduce government subsidy.

So what's going to happen when House Republicans try to pass their $100B spending cuts? They're going to get caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side, they need to propose a measure that will make it through the Dem-controlled Senate and past the President's desk. To do that, they're going to have to bite the bullet and do some real homework instead of just pointing the finger at healthcare like they usually do. Any measure that doesn't meet the Dems' approval will just get shot down.

Now proposing asinine bills and blaming their failure on the Democrats is like Page 2 in the Republicans' playbook. But all those Tea Partiers that us Democrats are so "afraid" of are never going to let them get away with that. Those Tea Partiers aren't going let John Boehner float a lead balloon over the Senate and call it a day when it sinks. If the Republicans don't SUCCEED in cutting spending, they're going to get shouted down by their own extremists.

And if they DO succeed in cutting spending, they're going to rout their own supporters. Good luck convincing a bunch of old people that spiking the price of their prescriptions is necessary to balance the federal budget. Good luck convincing all those swing voters in Virginia that cuts to their public transportation system are necessary. And I wonder what the Tea Party will think about the DC district budget getting slashed. Given the name of their movement, they're probably not too big on Taxation Without Representation, wouldntja say?

Delicious.

Looking forward to the Democratic majority in '12.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:58 pm

Ragorn wrote:Looking forward to the Democratic majority in '12.


Heheh good luck with that. You have a lot going against you.

But you make a good point otherwise. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:51 pm

Yep good points Ragorn. Now its time for the rubber to meet the road for the GOP and if the GOP constituents stop backing them because they actually do cut their government benefits, then they're no better than Demcorats.

However, I will dispute that you can't cut government without cutting direct benefits to people. You can cut the EPA, you can cut the farm subsidies, you can cut ethanol subsidies, you can cut the military, foreign policy, Planned parenthood, PBS, the ad council, tobacco cessation, DEA, 56 billion for airport privacy invading scanners, food aid etc... Those aren't the biggest budget items, but we can cut without affecting direct aid.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:30 pm

kiryan wrote:However, I will dispute that you can't cut government without cutting direct benefits to people. You can cut the EPA, you can cut the farm subsidies, you can cut ethanol subsidies, you can cut the military, foreign policy, Planned parenthood, PBS, the ad council, tobacco cessation, DEA, 56 billion for airport privacy invading scanners, food aid etc... Those aren't the biggest budget items, but we can cut without affecting direct aid.

That's a big long list of things that could be cut without affecting you. How do you think voters in Iowa would respond to ethanol subsidies being cut? How do you think voters in Nebraska will react to a reduction in farm subsidies? If you cut the military, all the Republican gun nuts start bitching. Cut the DEA, and you lose the old conservative sector that's staunchly opposed to drugs.

And sure, you could cut PBS and Planned Parenthood, but now you're down into the "tens of millions of dollars" bracket. And the political fallout of cutting those programs would far exceed the budgetary value you'd get. You touch Planned Parenthood and all of the pro-Choice activists will be all over you. Very few Democrats would bite on that for such a small budgetary gain. And go ahead... try to cut NPR. Watch how fast the Fairness Doctrine starts making headlines again.

One of the line items in the Republicans' plan is the removal of $150 million in federal funding for the DC area metrorail system. $150M is 0.15% of the budget cut proposal. It's a drop in the bucket, it's piss in the pool. It's the kind of expense an Oklahoma lawmaker wouldn't think twice about farting on. But if that cut is enacted, you're going to see three million seriously pissed commuters in the DC/VA/MD area calling for blood. It's all over the news here. It's huge.

See, these idiots don't understand that "Taxed Enough Already" means "you're going to be paying more for basic services if the government doesn't subsidize them." They think that "lower taxes" means "more discretionary income in my pocket." It doesn't. It means you pay less on April 15th and you pay more on the other 364 days of the year. That money has to come from somewhere, and it's going to come from YOU, no matter how you want to cough it up. And that's the disconnect. That's the problem the Republicans face right now... they got elected on what's going to turn out to be a very unpopular piece of legislation, and they can't weasel their way out of it with more tax cuts for the rich.

We'll see.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:54 pm

I'm specifically separating direct aid (social security check) vs causes you support or indirect aid. Ethanol subsidies perhaps are direct benefits, but plenty of the other things I mention aren't.

Your suggestion that people will revolt when causes they favor are cut is ... accurate... expected... natural? They however can not support cuts to everyone's programs but theirs the point of the tea party in my opinion... of the revitalized conservative movement is to cut government period... which means we all lose stuff we currently get for "free..."

look at the alternative, cut only things that people won't object too... thats about as morally bankrupt as taxing only people who can't win in the forum of public opinion... like smokers. No if the goal is to cut spending, to reduce government we must cut it broadly... not just unpopular programs all programs or even bad and good programs. The point is to get government out of our lives and that starts with spending. No money, no spending, no power. The american people need to exercise the power of the purse to reign in governemnt like Congress does to reign in the president.

It could be blood in 2012 it could be blood in 2011 from protests... it could be the most disastorous position the GOP ever took in every sense other than long term future. There will be hordes of people pissed off rioting in the streets when government takes their free ride. We saw it all year in Europe... they're literally killing people over there because they're so mad they lost x y or z... and they already have higher taxes...

We must stop this cycle before we get to that point. The cycle where government gives stuff away people give it more power to give more away to give it more power eventually runs out of stuff to give.

I hope that Republicans sit back and take it in their pocket book as you explain... if you don't pay in on 4/15 you will the other 365 days of the year. Thats very true... but the point is YOU are making the decision to pay it vs the government taking it from you and making the decision.... really, 85% of people already have health insurance right? Why are at least 50% of us pissed off about the healthcare law... about the individual mandate fine/provision that they wouldn't have to pay because they already buy insurance?

The question is not whether we want services or will pay for them, the question is whether government is responsible for providing every kind of imaginable service to anyone they decide is entitled to them.

--

hell I would fully support the eliminating of the non profit exemption. That would affect me my church and a lot of organizations I think are good. I don't want hte government to have that money to spend, so we would need to reduce its revenues somewhere else... but non profits should pay taxes and it will cost me more to make sure they stay functional after such a change...
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:02 pm

The economy comes down to a very simple equation: If you want it, you have to pay for it. American citizens get a lot of services from their government, in ways they realize and in ways they don't. When the government stops subsidizing a service, you start paying more for it.

The other thing is, voters are idiots. They don't understand the economy. They don't understand the federal budget. They get their information from 22-minute cable news shows, talk radio, the Daily Show, or fark.com. Your typical voter will riot in the streets over high government spending, then he'll riot again after the federal budget gets cut and his utilities costs go up. He'll call Barney Frank an idiot, he'll rant about how stupid all these government economists are, he'll go on the internet and propose wildly short-sighted "solutions" to a problem he doesn't understand. He'll get mad at "those so-called experts" for being "so stupid."

There's a lot of government spending that could be cut, a lot of pork projects and discretionary spending that could be curtailed. Every one of those projects affects someone though. Every one, when cut, will make somebody angry. The media will tap in to that anger and churn it, so that every action the government takes results in seeming outrage. Cutting federal projects ain't easy. I hope that the Republicans put together a plan that works for both parties, and I hope the government as a whole works to message the impact of the cuts effectively. I don't think they will, though. I think the urge to politicize is too strong. I think the Republicans will propose a bunch of funding cuts, then blame Obama for the reduction in government services. That's how it goes. I only hope the Democrats keep them honest about the impact of their party's platforms. Accountability is a big buzzword in the conservative community, except when it comes time to talk about who's at fault in the government, and then it's always Obama.

So again... we'll see how this plays out.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:14 pm

Typical liberal sentiment: people are stupid.

Of course if you want an economy you have to pay for it. If nobody is spending money there is no economy. But there are productive ways to spend money and also less productive ways. Time and time again you see that private individuals and the private sector spend money more efficiently than the government. The government has no profit motive and thus no criteria for determining the best use of it's money. Should we build new roads? Hire more agricultural inspectors? Give further subsidies to the municipalities to pay for education? Yes, yes and yes. It all sounds great. But how do you decide where the money goes when it's not unlimited?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:24 pm

Corth wrote:Typical liberal sentiment: people are stupid.


Well, 50% of all people do have below average intelligence...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:29 pm

And your point is? The bottom 50% of anything is below average. Does that make half of us stupid? One is a relative term and the other is an objective term.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:59 pm

Poor Corth...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:43 pm

Ragorn wrote:The economy comes down to a very simple equation: If you want it, you have to pay for it.


Exactly true.

Please understand your own words, if YOU want it, YOU have to pay for it. The lowest 50% of tax filers pay 3% of income taxes. They are not paying for it.

Ragorn wrote:American citizens get a lot of services from their government, in ways they realize and in ways they don't. When the government stops subsidizing a service, you start paying more for it.


Very true, we don't fully undersatnd what government does for us... and if the government stopped paying for it, we'd see what we're actually paying for and could make our own decision about whether to consume that service... for example snow removal.

However, I think it is far from settled that government does anything cheaper than the private sector...
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Republicans' campaign promises are "hypothetical"

Postby Ragorn » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:17 pm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50576.html

As predicted, the fallout is starting. Summary of this (fairly short) article:

- Tea Party not amused that Boehner's spending cut bill only totalled $61B.

- Tea Party not amused that Boehner tried to announce victory before the measure was even considered in the Senate. Claims he should celebrate when the measure passes, not just when the House GOP manages to vote down the party ticket to move the bill next door.

*awkward*
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest