Posted on 04/08/2011 10:15:07 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
The bipartisan deal struck Friday falls short of the House Republican campaign pledge to cut $100 billion in fiscal 2011 spending.
The pact cuts $78.5 billion when compared to President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget request, which was never enacted.
The accord cuts $39 billion in actual spending, $22 billion less than bill the House passed in February.
In a brief interview, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Hill the agreement was "as good a deal as we could get."
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he expects "significant" opposition from conservatives, both to the short-term fix and the long-term spending bill. He said he will vote against both
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Well said. Every single true fiscal conservative in the House counts. Every single vote on the conservative side pushes the overall result in the right direction.
Libertains can’t win a race for dog catcher....their legalize drugs and anti-war stands doom them to forever being a fringe outliner.
Sweet. This bodes well for the 2012 budget battle doesn't it.
Exactly.
Amazing cuts when faced with obama and the democratically controlled senate.
More to follow, as the rats folded much, much more than the republicans did.
Spot on.
Well said.
Boehner wasn't the Speaker in 2003...just sayin'...
Not the US military.
The impact of no paycheck would have been enormous. The hit on morale would have been devastating, as guys in combat would be worrying about mom and the kids back home and keeping the home and feeding them.
Indeed. The “I want everything or I will take my ball (vote) and stay home” approach guarantees a win for the opposition—every time.
“I suppose you would have been the British officer that ordered the charge of the Light Brigade. A charge into the cannons on both sides of the dead ended valley will only chew up and make a bloody pulp of fine cavalry.”
How **exactly** does pushing for larger cuts, and shutting down the government for few days to let the dems feel the heat and seriousness of the situation kill our troops?
Or, if you meant the above analogy figuratively, how **exactly** does pushing for larger cuts as I’ve explained “chew up and make a bloody pulp” of our figurative “fine cavalry”?
The implication of your assertion is that a Republican hard push to cut spending is self-destructive. I ask you to observe that the **lack** of a Republican hard push to cut spending is self-destructive. Those within the American Right that want to compromise are self-destructive to the American Right.
Are you among those that want to compromise?
Second question: Who is this “fine cavalry” you speak of?
Hal Rogers?
Lindsey Graham?
John McCain?
If this is the “fine cavalry” that we make concessions to preserve, then I submit that “cavalry” is expendable. Why are these people tolerated in the Republican Party?
Are all of the Republican appropriators that were **forced** into the rhetorical place they are today by “extremists” like me “fine cavalry”?
I’m a little puzzled by how you feel your analogy holds water in the face of these two apparent inconsistencies.
“The basic assumption, a win, is fallacious.”
What? This sentence doesn’t even make sense. A win is fallacious? What the hell does that mean?
“Kill what you can, while you can and make the cavalry charge on better ground.”
He who cannot be trusted in small things should not be trusted in large things.
Going forward, Republicans, and the American Right in general need to learn the following phrase:
“Not good enough.”
It describes the deal Republicans made: We agree with them in principle. They were on the right side. They did fight the good fight, and they did achieve some things. But, unfortunately good is the enemy of great. Those who settle for good will never want to try to for great. In short, it was not good enough.
“It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required.” -Winston Churchill
Next comes the debt ceiling: now, we’re talking big money!
Now watch as all the “conservatives” try to talk you out of any alternative to the Republican Party!
Check out Tea Party Nation’s take, fairly spot on:
http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/surrender-by-any-other-name
What exactly about no compromise do some people not understand?
"Cuts"? What exactly do you mean by cuts?
The 2010 budget was 3.5 trillion. The 2011 budget, which became Boehner's budget because the Democrats never passed one, will now be 3.6 trillion.
That's not a cut.
That's an increase.
It's now at an all time high.
It's even higher than the 2010 "stimulus" budget that included a 1 trillion dollar stimulus.
That's truly, unbelievable.
Warning about Gonorrhea Lectim
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It’s pronounced “Gonna re-elect ‘em,” and it is terribly painful.
“More to follow, as the rats folded much, much more than the republicans did.”
And Post 168.
Wow amazing. First you make a stupid comment about being able to add and subtact then follow it up with the comment above.
Maybe you can't make your calculator work with trillions and quadrillions, but I dare say that I, and a lot of others here, could by understanding how to use scientific notations or just simple powers of 10.
By the way that is taught in high school/middle school mathematics.
Apparently you are not aware of the first rule of holes,
When in one quit digging
Have a great day and do yourself a favor and quit posting me, especially about basic math and calculators both of which seem to give your problems.
Grow up
It's ironic, that is the same exactly thing the phony Bush groupies used to tell everyone.
The 2010 budget was 3.5 trillion with a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. The 2011 budget, which became Boehner's budget because the Democrats never passed one, will now be 3.6 trillion with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Your claim that my approach is the I-want-everything approach, is baseless.
The Senate now HAS to VOTE on cutting funding for Planned Parenthood.
2 ..and they pass the cuts.
Then obama VETOES IT.
we LOSE AGAIN!!
Then obama vetoes it.
Then what?
Planned parenthood keeps getting the MONEY and we look like fools,as usual.
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.