Posted on 04/03/2011 7:32:59 AM PDT by maggief
Ryan = BS. What has the GOP done today?
but they tried really really hard, just like Bill Clinton did. That is the memory I have most vividly of him, and of Newt Gingrich. They both used the same BS line.
“Even those called bold, like Ryan, are way way short of the goal.”
Yea, he is short, way short. But he’s trying to come up with something that will not be DOA. We are boxed in, you cannot even get a majority of people over 50 years old, ON THIS SITE, willing to allow Social Security to be touched...so you can just imagine how the rest of the country feels.
It really does not matter if people agree, when you are in control you do whatever it takes to save the country. To Hell with being reelected or loved.
“It really does not matter if people agree, when you are in control you do whatever it takes to save the country. To Hell with being reelected or loved.”
Ideally, yes. In the real world, you have to think a bit further out. If you ATTEMPT the right thing now, and get DEFEATED, which will certainly be the case until 2013...why bother...since you just assured Obama’s 2013 re-election.
In other words, you have to be careful not to over-reach, or you may wind up with NOTHING (or less).
“but they tried really really hard, just like Bill Clinton did.”
Reminds me of a dialogue from the movie “The Rock” with Sean Connery (John Mason) and Nicholas Cage (Stanley Goodspeed):
John Mason: Are you sure you’re ready for this?
Stanley Goodspeed: I’ll do my best.
John Mason: Your “best”! Losers always whine about their “best.” Winners go home and f*** the prom queen!
IMO, there is no downside to balancing the budget by 2012. There is enough waste, duplication of efforts and unnecessary govt expenditures to make this a no-brainer. If you do that, you will sweep to landslide victories in both the House, and Senate, then it doesn’t matter who is in the White House. How could a Democrat run against a properly run campaign to balance the Federal budget? The Republican party has hundreds of millions of dollars in their pocket right now, to overwhelm the public airways with targeted ads. Once the battle is begun, money would flow in from citizens of both parties. I would even send them money again.
It's easy to balance the budget by 2012 if we can just cut way back on Social Security benefits, Medicsre benefits, Medicaid benefits, agricultural subsidies, food stamps, or just raise taxes.
With nearly all of our seniors on welfare now, there aren't many politicians who are willing to cut these programs in 2012, or 2013, or 2014, or at any time less than ten years from now. And, of course, while they can talk about cutting these programs in ten years, they have no power to control the budget ten years from now, so it's really just empty talk.
They are talking about raising taxes in the near term, but they're calling it Tax Reform.
“IMO, there is no downside to balancing the budget by 2012. There is enough waste, duplication of efforts and unnecessary govt expenditures to make this a no-brainer.”
If only that were true...not when we’re talking TRILLION dollar plus deficits.
The rut of the problem (to borrow a Dr. Jocelyn Elders term) is that the government simply SENDS OUT much more money than it takes in. In fact, you could FIRE every federal worker, and still have a Trillion dollar deficit.
No...something has to give...either we tax the crap out of people, or we cut DEEP and VERY DEEP, or we keep running the same deficits.
If you think that’s a winning strategy, you need to study the history of Republican BLOWOUTS more.
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.