Republicans cave on government shut down, agree to 38B in cuts and no PP defunding

[Guest HvyMtl]

MikeG, No, interesting, as the Media aided the GOP push into Congress... (generally.) And the Dems were behind some of that...

To Quote and respond to Mav,"The Tea Party brought about an almost record breaking victory in 2008. If it can happen again in 2012, then I expect to see some enormous changes. "

Well, if you ask the Tea Party, their platform is for balancing the budget, and live within our means. In general, they are a Fiscal Movement, and not Ideological. The GOP pushed the Ideological button, by pressing against PP and NPR/T. This points to pandering to their "old school" supporters, and ignoring the Tea Party. Basically, the Tea Party Movement pushed more "Same Ole GOP" back into office.

In addition, the pointed to "infiltration" of GOP into the Tea Party Movement's leadership roles, points to a highjacking of the movement, to gain more GOP in office, rather than to change how things are in D.C.

Personally, I hope the Tea Party Movement realizes this, and becomes a legitimate political party, devoid of the Bush GOP we presently have.

(Side note, most people I know who watch NPT are older, conservative, and better off, and they were ticked the GOP were going after their Lawrence Welk...)

[mav]

Well, if you ask the Tea Party, their platform is for balancing the budget, and live within our means. In general, they are a Fiscal Movement, and not Ideological. The GOP pushed the Ideological button, by pressing against PP and NPR/T. This points to pandering to their "old school" supporters, and ignoring the Tea Party. Basically, the Tea Party Movement pushed more "Same Ole GOP" back into office.

In addition, the pointed to "infiltration" of GOP into the Tea Party Movement's leadership roles, points to a highjacking of the movement, to gain more GOP in office, rather than to change how things are in D.C.

Yes and no. Yes, the Tea Party primarily came about due to the fiscal irresponsiblity of those in Washington. However, the Tea Party comprises of a lot of social conservatives as well. I don't really consider the republicans push to defund PP and NPR as pushing an "ideological button" or pandering to "old school" supporters.

It is pandering to their base, which consists of conservatives and tea partiers. If you asked the people within both of those camps if they agreed with the republicans push to defund those organizations, I believe you would find overwhelming support. I know I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions or funding some left wing propaganda outlet.

As I stated earlier, there is only so much we (conservatives and libertarians) can do with control of only 1/3 of the federal government. To think that we will be able to balance a budget much less create a budget surplus with hardcore socialists in control of the remaining 2/3 is wishful thinking. What I was suggesting is that we make an honest assessment of our current situation, and with that realization we fight for what we can get. Are we going to be able to get everything we want? Of course not. However, we will be able to make some gains, albeit small ones, towards the right direction. If we can bring the same energy and passion into 2012 that we saw in 2008, then we will be able to regain control. Only then will we be able to see some serious cuts and a weakening of the behemoth.

If we throw our hands up in frustration and make claims like that both parties are the same or that we have to get rid of all the bastards, we will lose in 2012. This happened in the 2006 elections. So many people were ticked, and rightly so, at the republican party for their reckless spending. What was their solution? They said they were going to teach the party by not voting. Look what that got us. Fortunately, the voters who abstained from voting in 2006 came to their senses in 2010 and started primarying crappy incumbents and voted an almost record number of democrats out of office. If we can vote in more people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim Demint, etc... and get rid of people like Lindsay Graham, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, etc... we will finally be able to do something meaningful in changing the direction of this country.

During the primaries, I will always vote for the more conservative candidate. If they lose the primary, and I am left with the option of voting for two evils, I will vote for the lesser of the two. If given no other realistic option, I would much rather have someone who is going to bankrupt the country over a period of 20 years versus someone who will do it in 5. Hopefully I want have to make those kind of choices in 2012.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

During the primaries, I will always vote for the more conservative candidate. If they lose the primary, and I am left with the option of voting for two evils, I will vote for the lesser of the two. If given no other realistic option, I would much rather have someone who is going to bankrupt the country over a period of 20 years versus someone who will do it in 5. Hopefully I want have to make those kind of choices in 2012.

Conservative is not the only factor, though I too would prefer an inevitable bankruptcy to occur after I die rather than soon in the next few years.

We also need especially a president with some modicum of wisdom. Even if such a person is not necessarily the most "conservative" except possibly on fiscal issues.

GWB had lots of help from Republican congresscritters, and GWB wasn't "evil", but a good case can be made that GWB almost single-handedly brought down the Republican party. Republicans were sitting in the cat-bird seat till GWB got in there.

If GWB had done what he campaigned on in 2000 it may have been different. He said he wanted to stop meddling in world affairs, but didn't follow that promise. He promised to be fiscally conservative, but didn't follow that promise either. Republicans had a lock on the congress and passed a lot of bad law, but GWB didn't have to sign it. GWB barely vetoed anything. In spite of a RINO congress, GWB could have mitigated the damage by vetoing a bunch of that idiocy.

And when Republicans saw their popularity slipping, they went pandering to liberals with more spending and more house loans for those who can't afford them and such, trying to buy continued popularity from their enemies. When Republicans would actually have remained more popular following the original campaign promises.

BHO is similarly "almost single handedly" destroying the Democrat party (with lots of help from congress).

It is crazy to refer to Hillary as a "wise woman" but even Hillary would have been wiser than BHO. Likely even the brain-damaged stroke survivor Biden might have fumbled his way thru the last few years better than BHO, gaffs and all.

BHO was elected "anybody but Bush" because Bush sucked so bad. Bush is not a bad person, probably a nice guy to drink a beer with, but not a wise president. Similarly BHO probably wouldn't make a bad slightly-nutty neighbor if he had never been given such massive power to screw up the USA with his nutty ideas.

If we pick "anybody but Obama" and get another person lacking wisdom, then it will destroy the nascent Republican/Libertarian comeback in its infancy. A pee-poor conservative idiot for 2012 president will guarantee another pee-poor liberal idiot for 2016.

I'd rather have another 4 years of horrible decisions from BHO than a conservative idiot who will hand back power to the liberals via bad decisions.

In a feedback control system you risk oscillation if the level of feedback interacts badly with the time constants of the system, leading to eventual destruction of the system or eventual latch-up in an extreme state. Our democratic-republic system is a feedback system and it is in danger of severe oscillation unless we get sufficient damping by ASAP electing some politicians who have some wisdom.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[mav]

You certainly won't get any argument from me. I couldn't stand Bush even though I voted for him twice. The sad thing about the upcoming prez. election is when you mention a conservative such as Palin or Paul, everybody starts crying that they can't be elected, and it will guarantee an Obama victory. So far I only like three potential candidates, Palin, Paul, and Cain. I think Romney will be similar to Bush. I can't stand Huckabee mainly because I think he is nothing more than a RINO who wraps himself in the cloth to get some cred with the social conservatives. I am not sure about Trump or Pawlenty. Gingrich used to be good, but he has become too much of a beltway-type politician.

[G27]

CBO: Budget deal cuts this fiscal year’s deficit by just $353 million, not $38 billion touted - The Washington Post

So, not $38 billion, but rather $353 million...

Still think the repubs did a great thing for us?

Both parties suck and neither one of them has the balls to do what needs to be done. Vote 'em all out.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Crimson, you have to realize, also that the CBO can be just as wrong as what Congress votes on.

I suspect that both are wrong, though. They should have pushed something close to what Rand Paul

suggests. Snowball's chance on that until we get more in Congress like him. That takes time.

[mav]

Well, I take back some of what I said regarding this deal. Even though I didn't like it, I could have lived with a $38 billion cut, but this is nothing but a sandwich. I still believe that it is impossible to make any meaningful cuts at this point, but $352 million is just pathetic.

The only thing we can do at this point is just endure more pain until 2012 and hopefully the Tea Party and those who share their views will vote more of the jackasses out of office.

[kieefer]

Yes, the deficit doctors have their scalpels out all right, but they're not poised over the budget. That's as fat as ever and getting fatter. What they're ready to operate on is your wallet.

RONALD REAGAN

Vote'em all out.

[Garufa]

Well, I take back some of what I said regarding this deal. Even though I didn't like it, I could have lived with a $38 billion cut, but this is nothing but a sandwich. I still believe that it is impossible to make any meaningful cuts at this point, but $352 million is just pathetic.

The only thing we can do at this point is just endure more pain until 2012 and hopefully the Tea Party and those who share their views will vote more of the jackasses out of office.

There is always hope but reality dictates otherwise.

[mav]

As I was finishing up my taxes this evening, I was thinking more and more about lameness of this deal. It reached a tipping point when I started to write out checks to the federal treasury and Georgia treasury (I work in GA) departments. Normally I wouldn't be so upset about paying since I have to pay every year, but this evening felt like rubbing salt into an open wound.

[eapking]

A shut down would have been fine with me. We have to stop this runaway train.

[G27]

Did someone mention a runaway train?

1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)

1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)

2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)

2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)

2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)

2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)

2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)

2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)

2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)

2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)

[eapking]

Oh yeah, it's been going on a while. Didn't say Barry started this mess, but he sure seems hell bent on riding this horse.

[G27]

Oh yeah, it's been going on a while. Didn't say Barry started this mess, but he sure seems hell bent on riding this horse.

Yah, I know. I'm just making the point that regardless of the letter beside the name of the president, or who is running congress, this out of control spending has been happening for some time. IOW, we need to face the fact that the repubs aren't our saviors - they're historically (recent history) no better than the dems wrt fiscal responsibility...

[Oh Shoot]

... we need to face the fact that the repubs aren't our saviors - they're historically (recent history) no better than the dems wrt fiscal responsibility...

- OS

[G27]

To understand the U.S. federal budget, divide by 100,000,000 - Boing Boing

[Guest bkelm18]

- OS

Win.

[Links2k]

Win.

Yes sir!

[Garufa]

What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

A Democrat might call you in the morning.

[USMCJG]

It's not really about Democrats or Republicans. It's not as though there is much difference in most cases. It's really Libertarians versus Statists. For example Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Carter, and Clinton were/are all much closer to the Statist side of the spectrum. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Bachmann, Cain, and Reagan were/are closer to the Libertarian side of the spectrum. The current Democrat party is probably 90-95% Statist. The current Republican party, after the last election, is down to probably 50-55% Statist. The Statists have been in control for a very long time, no matter which party has had control of Congress and the Presidency. I still have hope though that the Tea Party movement can shift the landscape a little more to the Libertarian side of the scale, at least fiscally if not socially.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You nailed it. Statists have infected both parties

and only some in the Republican side are trying

to fight it. The Tea Party is the disinfectant, and

the jug needs to keep on getting refilled!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk