Replies

To “be fiscally conservative” or to “reduce government spending” it is not just a matter of making a budget . Oh yes the liberal media has lied and said that is what Republicans did , made a budget . that's a lie. Almost all spending growth is mandated by laws passed by democrat congresses.
To “be fiscally conservative” or to “reduce government spending” , Republicans would have to repeal Obamacare, social security,medicare,medicaid, HUD , and thousands of other agencies and thousands of laws that mandate those agencies etc.

And they would need a 2/3 majority to override an Obama veto to repeal any law. With a willing conservative president they would need a super majority in Congress to repeal any law.

To “be fiscally conservative” or to “reduce government spending” , Republicans would have to repeal Obamacare, social security,medicare,medicaid, HUD , and thousands of other agencies and thousands of laws that mandate those agencies etc.

Fair enough.

Let's pretend that the Republican dream came true tonight and everything you mentioned came to pass - with absolutely no opportunity for an Obama veto. Would you be happy?

My point is that the Republicans don't understand economics any better than the Democrats.

The problem is that we have a debt-based currency, instead of one which is issued by our US Treasury. This means that all of what we call 'money' is simply a claim on the future labor of a person or group of people.

If the Republicans were successful in getting rid of everything that you mentioned (which we need to) then we will see the true economic depression that we are in - since the debt-money will be greatly reduced.

The Republicans need to combine their reduced spending plans with what is much more important - the concept of ridding our nation of debt-based currency.

If the US Treasury issued our currency then there would be no need to issue claims (US government securities) against the future labor of our people.

The question that everyone should be asking is this: Why won't the Republican Party fight for honest currency (and no, I don't mean gold)?

"With a willing conservative president they would need a super majority in Congress to repeal any law."

What? A simple majority in both chambers is all that is constitutionally necessary to pass or repeal any law. Two thirds of both chambers are needed to override a presidential veto. The Senate is able to muck things up a bit with its sixty votes to break a filibuster tradition, but this practice of filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution. Indeed it could be construed to be unconstitutional, however, the Constitution does give each chamber the right to set and enforce its own rules. So the filibuster is sort of a dubious, but still legal practice of the Senate. In summary, all that's necessary to pass or repeal laws or legislation are simple majorities from both chambers along with presidential approval of the legislation.