Posted on 04/08/2011 9:20:07 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Yup, THAT’S what should have been done. And I would have thrown PP, Obamacare, EPA carbon regs and a number of other riders, then taken all but one or two off table and lowered the cuts by no more than half, using the riders as throwaways to keep the cuts high. Why? Because it’s this years budget. If I can get a couple of the riders and significant cuts now then get more later so be it.
Boner had the right idea, he just didn’t have the cajones to go for more. He did win some things, but still lost bigger than he won.
right on I agree...
Can you imagine the public relations bonanza the Republicans could have had with that. "Ubanga refuses to pay troops unless taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions."
Is my memory so flawed? Were GW Bush nominees not still held up, even after McCain’s “gang” supposedly came to an agreement that those nominees would get a vote?
If we are standing in a hole that’s 15 feet deep, we just dug another 14 feet 6 inches deeper. We know we have to climb out of the hole but aren’t smart enough to figure out that we have to stop digging first.
Republican cowardice is understandable. See, if government “shuts down” then the bums, deadbeats, and parasites who comprise the Democrat party base - - the only people who would actually notice a government shutdown - - will howl like no tomorrow and never vote for Republicans again.
I know....
Your head will explode if you try to figure out Republican cowardice.
Yes, and one of them is flaglady47. You want to know how the political process works? You saw it tonight: The Democrats propose spending $1400 bn we don't have (in addition to another $2600 bn we shouldn't ne spending in the first place), and the Republicans kick and scream for a few hours on TV, and then give them -- LITERALLY 99% of everything they want.
It is YOU who live in Lalaland. It is YOU who are living in a fantasy world. YOU have no idea how dire our economic situation has become, and clearly on the basis of what happened last night, it is going to be even more dire next year, and the next.
And people like YOU are the problem. You think I am unreasonable for expecting $467 bn in cuts, yet you think nothing whatsoever of allowing 0 to borrow and spend three times that amount! What exactly was reasonable about our agreeing to that? What exactly was reasonable about allowing 0 to increase the size of the Federal government by 25% in 2009? We functioned perfectly well in 2008, spending $800 bn less -- in fact government was ALREADY TOO LARGE -- the year Bush left office.
When all the money you've ever saved in your life is wiped out by the inflationary tidal wave that's on it's way now, and when your children and grandchildren are crippled by debt, slaving all their lives for nothing, when The United States of America becomes a vassal state of totalitarian China, remember my words: YOU are a Quisling, and YOU are the problem.
Kudos. Not for assaulting flags poor reasoning but for stating the case precisely.
Hmmmmm, diagnosis, a hysteric. Been on the couch lately? You might want to consider it.
Diagnosis: no debating skills, and no facts on your side of the argument.
“Diagnosis: no debating skills, and no facts on your side of the argument.”
One should not mistake putting half of your conversation in ALL CAPS as debating skills; hysteria is more like it.
Still crickets on the facts, logic, arithmetic, and argument side. “Well played.”
Thhe hyperventilators seem to rule these threads. Sad, as they are as irrational as the far left Dems are. You can’t win w/out compromise when you only have one half of one House of Congress, and no Presidency. But the dunderhead hotheads can’t seem to understand the obvious.
There’s your fact for you, simple logic, comprende?
If one GOP POTUS for 8 years willing to fight for his programs and principles could take on two house opposition and at least get a considerable portion of his agenda pushed through then why can't the GOP congress? When you have GOP as Liberal as the Democratic Party and they are not held accountable for sake of the party must win or else mentality you only have a one party nation. Right now I'd be very pleased if one third of the congress gridlocked the mess for several months.
One third standing against both parties would straighten much of the current mess out. Change will not come by playing nice with the DEMs or even some members of the GOP. Change will come when we get enough elected in congress with a spine and not focused on winning the next election instead. That is why the GOP folds like cheap seats. The idiots are too focused on maintaining office till their retirement rather than actually doing something while there is opportunity.
Which brings up another matter. The best way to get term limits is to start demanding an end to the congressional retirement program. There should be no retirement benefits for federal elected offices. Elected offices should not be careers either.
One Edward Kennedy spent nearly 50 years in the U.S. senate as the functional majority leader. Nothing happened on either side without his blessing. I despised the man but had the GOP fought like him we would not be in this mess. Dole couldn't get past him nor could Lott, Frist, or anyone else. Why? Because they never fought.
What, by this action, was done with the Federal budget:
.
A family with income of $26,000 a year is spending $38,000. (Add eight zeroes to each of those figures and you have the federal budget.)
.
The so-called “man of the house” tells his family, “We can’t go on like this. Our credit cards are near their limit, and soon we won’t even be able to pay the interest on them. We need to spend less, so let’s cut spending this year by $630 to $37,370”
.
After a few days of conflict at home, he can’t bear the pressure. He goes back to his family and sheepishly tells them he will be satisfied if they cut spending by only $390, and that he will accept the family spending $37,610.
.
Why should we have any confidence Republican leaders will have the courage to address the remaining $11,600 in my example (multiplied by 100 million in the federal budget) when they can’t hold out even a weekend over a lousy $240 that won’t even begin to address the problem?
.
I’m thoroughly disgusted with not just them, but my supposedly conservative Congressman that voted them into positions of leadership. Why give majorities to Republicans when the allow Democrats to dictate the agenda and the results on any issue of consequence?
The GOP Cult following is so insane that when Bill Frist wrote Medicare reform straight out of the same program a DEM governor of Tennessee did just a few years earlier some in here considered Frist overhaul of Medicare a sacred work.
Every time I get the notion to start supporting the GOP as a party again it gives me ample reason not too. I'll work for and support any Conservative Party rooted in Constitutional principles willing to take the place of the current GOP.
‘Were GW Bush nominees not still held up, even after McCain’s “gang” supposedly came to an agreement that those nominees would get a vote?’
All nominees agreed to in that deal got a vote. Many not agreed to did not get a vote,
“You mean Gerald Ford, don’t you? Reagan took him on in 1976 and cut the party right down the middle.”
I was referring to his 80/20 principle and also his “11th Commandment”. It’s one thing to take on opponents in a primary, quite another to present in-fighting and “family bickering” to the public and media.
“Either the GOP starts getting it’s act together with a will to get down and dirty and fight or it will be Whigged and replaced.”
My guess is I’m talking yet again to a Libertarian. Sorry, I’m a conservative Republican, emphasis on conservative, not interested in a thirdy party. Sick of third party libertarians infecting the conservative body. Go sell your third party baloney elsewhere.
Your guess like your comments are wrong :>} 1976 Reagan in the primaries and Ford in the general. 1980-88 Reagan in both primary and general. 1988 Bush in both general and primary. 1992 Bush in the general with serious reservations due to military cuts and his overall policy. 1996 POTUS vote Alan Keyes in the GOP Primary Howard Phillips in the general election the 1996 GOP Convention a gathering of Liberal Republican Freaks sealed it for me. I'd had enough.
2000 election Alan Keyes in the primary Howard Phillips in the general. 2004 Keyes again in the primary and Peroutka in the general. 2008 Chuck Baldwin in the general election. I think my voting record does not make me a Libertarian at any point but rather a supporter of The Constitution Party from 1996 on. IOW I vote far more Conservative than you likely ever have or ever will. I stopped voting the GOP party choice in the general election in 1996 because they were LIBERALS.
You might want to actually read up on persons like Howard Phillips who had Reagan's ears and helped put him in office. Too many think being a Republican means being a Conservative as long as they support party votes, candidates, and platform. There are Republicans in the GOP holding office today who are far left of what JFK was. Actually many of today's older Republicans likely voted for LBJ and some likely voted McGovern as well. IOW the GOP is not a Conservative Party but rather a party ran by liberals with Conservatives voting in it and a few holding office. That is the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.