Posted on 07/27/2011 3:19:03 PM PDT by hatfieldmccoy
We’re hearing it now cuts $917 billion over ten years under the more recent CBO baseline. So under $1 trillion. On the other hand, the cuts are apparently more front-loaded: $20 billion in real cuts in the first year.
Unfortunately, at this moment in time, a better bill will not get through the Senate.
So we either do nothing, and have no budget (which we criticized the dems for doing), or we put through a budget with minimal cuts, some debt relief, and no taxes.
How else would you like to govern to change our reality?
All we have to enact all these laws is Congress and the Presidency.I am not lost, looks like you are lost if you think that we can govern without our branches of government. That’s what I was saying.
Fine, go ahead and rant about all the power the left have...we all KNOW that.
Why bother with elections? Why bother trying to get a conservative president and a strong conservative congress?
After all, if we get conservatives in, they won’t have any power. Oh, wait, you argued that congress should just not vote any more spending...well, why? According to you , if the Left does not derive it’s power from congress and the Presidency..then the conservative Congress has no power either.
Well, then. If there is no point in getting a conservative President and congress...just give up.
You guys can’t have it both ways. The government is bad no matter which party is in and yet the TEa Party got us a more conservative Congress.Guess the Tea Party is irrelevant too.
If you want revoultion, why not just say that instead, cause that is what you are saying. Sell out the future? According to you, there IS no future, cause it doesn’t matter who we put in. So you are right where Left is...crash our system cause its no good and start all over.
Good luck.
You believe we should “not cave”. Well, that is one argument with its own consequences.
The GOP is too used to caving or to bending over, out of cultural memory.
The various plans floated AFTER Cut, Cap & Balance was tabled by the Senate, all seem to represent cuts out of the "baseline budget" over ten years, i.e. phantom cuts (the current Congress cannot bind a future Congress) compared to an assumed automatic INCREASE of 7% or so a year).
So the "1 trillion in cuts" is in reality (where China and other foreign bond-holders live) an INCREASE of 8 TRILLION.
I say put forth to go ahead with the puny cuts now and go for the election..and THAT has consequences.
If we can't get the leadership to go for more than puny cuts, after the largest overall shift in the electoral landscape in nearly 60 years, we need new leadership.
The independents, hell, everyone but the Marxists and the Welfare Queens (the hard-left Dem base) is on board with Cut, Cap & Balance.
The House passed that. They ought to adjourn indefinitely until it is passed by the Senate and signed by the Usurper.
And they can stand in front of every microphone in the land and say over and over, like a broken record:
"Two thirds of Americans wanted Cut, Cap and Balance, and we gave it to them. You are refusing to pass it."
"So, Senator Reid, Durbin, Harkin, Schumer, and President Obama...we upped our contribution. Now UP YOURS!"
Cheers!
That's what they should. But they're incapable of it. Not because of any immutable law of physics, but because of the vault doors in their minds, that they can't bypass.
Now be honest with yourself. The thought of massive cuts (I'm talking 40-50-75%)scare even you, don't they? You really wouldn't want to see it happen. Deep down inside you feel an allegiance to the System.
If you were made dictator tomorrow, you wouldn't pull the trigger on massive cuts would you?
Myself, being a sadistic reactionary could do it with relish and a whole lot more. I see them as existential enemies, you see them as opponents. That's why compromise is a possibility for you.
Luckily some of us have learned from the Left, it's the radicals that set the agenda, and we'll even save you too if we get the chance. How else would you like to govern to change our reality? Well since governing didn't get us into it, it holds almost no hope of getting us out of it.
History show that one of three things will happen to dislodge them: go through a multi-decade march through the institutions, their system collapses under it's own weight and a reactionary system replaces it, or it's taken from them by force.
I agree. We have all been played and there is so much blackmail being perpetrated, it is just a morass.
I’m only an armchair strategist, but after living with all this for so long, you do get to the point where you watch *the other hand*. Nothing is as it seems. Very little *news* is unspun or w/o ulterior motive.
Basically, we live in Plato’s Cave and have to decipher the shadows on the wall because reality is so purposefully obfuscated by all sides.
Not only does welfare go into the economy, the food stamp program is part of the Department of Ag and the grocery stores are kept afloat by SNAP or whatever various acronyms they use. Every program *for the poor* also benefits some industry or other economic interest. As I said: blackmail of all sorts.
SCOTUS will. Followed up with IMPEACHMENT.
SCOTUS will? Surely you jest! And yes, I am calling you Shirley.
SCOTUS, just like the Senate & House cowardly legislators won't even follow through on a blatant constitutional eligibility question re. 0dumb0's eligibility to even be president of the USA. And are currently dragging their heels to allow the constitutionality of 0dumb0Care to come before the court. They are scared to death of having to rule on 0dumb0Care.
4 of the 9 justices are hard core RAT bastard socialists, the other 4 of 9 generally appear to be somewhat conservative, so it all comes down to the swing vote of Justice Kennedy.
Likewise the Repubs in the House are giving 0dumb0 a pass on his illegal war against Libya and I doubt they will have the gonads to go for impeachment re. Operation Fast & Furious.
So no, I don't have the slightest confidence that either SCOTUS or the Repub House would challenge or impeach 0dumb0 on such a trivial matter of his violating the 14th amendment.
Even when I've stated that some candidates/possible candidates for president, or Senate, were unelectable because of the perception of extremism, or otherwise just being a poor candidate, I've been flamed, even though by being a poor candidate it doesn't mean I think that individual is a bad person, or otherwise not honest, conservative, inspiring, etc. Christine O'Donnell in 2010, Palin this year, for example.
I'm not picking on women, these are just two recent examples. Others could be Alan Keyes, or Gary Bauer, or Pat Buchanan, etc...O'Donnell's views issue by issue were not extreme in the sense of how she would vote on any given issue...her problem was that she had some weirdness in her past and didn't have the political experience and charisma to overcome it and appeal to the masses. She was unable to come across as someone who was grounded in reality and could work with others.
Palin has similar issues, as well as leaving her governorship - no matter how legit her reasons for doing so, it looks bad to independents. Acknowledging this does not mean I am a RINO, or that I have surrendered to the left, or anything like that. It doesn't even mean I think we should nominate moderates or liberal Republicans.
In fact, I do believe that a good conservative candidate is far better than a mushy moderate. The qualifier is you have to have a good candidate who is a good conservative, too often we have a bad candidate who is a good conservative, or a good candidate who is a bad conservative, neither of whom usually wins. Ronald Reagan was NOT a RINO, but he had an air of "reasonableness" about him. He came across as a guy that, although he was strong in his convictions, he knew how to present his ideas, how to get them done, and how to come across (honestly) as a guy who knew how to work with the other side. This doesn't mean pandering, but it means accepting reality.
Although it can be a fine line between the two, its not rocket science, and it annoys me that people fail to understand that.
Who among 2012 contenders can fit that bill?
It's too early to say, but here's my analysis:
Palin - good conservative, bad candidate, probably can't win
Cain - good conservative, good candidate so far, a wild card since he's never held office, but has that "x-factor" I think we need. IF he could get the nomination, he could win.
Romney - good candidate, BAD conservative - might win, wouldn't excite the base, would try SO hard to work with Dems he'd basically become one, but still, better than Obama in the same way a pile of dogsh&t would be better than Obama.
Bachmann - good conservative, surprisingly good candidate so far. Remains to be seen, but has that "unreasonable" quality about her. Still, doing better so far than I'd expect.
Perry - good candidate, appears to be good conservative - the best combination of conservative and electable of anyone if he decides to run (but I'll still vote for Cain in the primary)
The Rest - ?? Nothing exciting.
Boehner has known all along this will fail
What is his REAL game
With a $1.4 trillion deficit - - ie. the Gov’t. is spending $1.4 trillion more than they take in - - cutting $22 billion is like spitting into a bonfire. It doesn’t take genious to figure that out. Doesn’t anyone in DC have a functioning brain?
I am beyond disgusted.
Agreed
“As we saw with health care, it doesnt really matter to Senate dems what the public polls in favor of.”
The only thing that matters to most politicians is getting re-elected. The phony moderate Dems saw what happened to the rest if their ilk in 2010. It would behoove them to pay attention to the polls now.
And it would help matters if the GOP turned the focus on them.
again i ask WHY does the credit limit need to be increased, if in fact, you plan on *cutting* the same or more outta spending ???
these thieves could at least offer a believable lie if they expect anybody with room temp IQ to fall for it...
“WHY don’t you read conservative economists.”
—I wonder what ‘conservative economists’ would make of this bizarro argument about interest rates after the downgrade...
“To: RockinRight
I agree.
Even if we don’t get a “default” if we show we are at least GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION with cutting the debt, we will avert the bond Market crisis, rising interest rates and a great chance at getting the Independents on our side for 2012.
54 posted on July 27, 2011 5:59:23 PM CDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (where is the Great Santini when we need him??)”
It’s baseline budgeting. It calls for $9.5 trillion in spending over the next decade. Anything less is “cut” to the political-bureaucratic class.
That is right, if we “cut” a trillion “over a decade” that is actually an increase of $8.5 trillion. It’s called a “draconian” cut in the beltway.
Start with Simple math. House Republicans alone couldnt come up with a $100B in budget cuts BY THEMSELVES because of their own voters. So not increasing the debt limit at all is cutting ~ $1.5T instead of $100B , but it's giving the decisions to Obama instead of Republicans taking responsibility. 1.5T/100B = 15 times what they couldnt do in a Republican only House budget bill.
Answer?? It's called elections and voters.
Republicans will increase the debt limit to some amount as opposed to above scenareo because they DONT want Pelosi as Speaker the next 10 years.
Look, if the ultimate goal is to put Dems in complete charge, then that should be stated, But it is silly to claim that blocking the national debt increase to the end $1.5T to zero will be a winner.
Because as always the real cuts are in the out years. I know it sounds stupid, it does to me, but look at the crap I got for making that complaint on the Ryan plan (which was not tied to the debt limit.) All the aggressive Ryan conservatives told me I was not being realistic expecting any cuts until 10 years have passed, and Rush loves that plan, thought it was brilliant.
Dont expect anything good out of congress.
Hey I havent see Obama is a few days Isnt he due for another speech or press conference
*cuts* are in the out years, after spending is already raised a few tril...thats so simple, only a retarded caveman should fall for it...
ooops, forgot the hopey-changeys get upset when i speak of moo-shell like the skanky wookie it is...
lets just face reality, that humans are hardwirded to be greedy...it really doesnt matter what the 'politics' or '12 are for us, *whoever* holds the reigns that yrs will be unwilling to cut for fear of losing in '14, and repeat the process for '16, '18 etc...
we're circling the bowl, and there aint much left before the final slurp...the gotcha game will continue until it collapses, probably very quickly when it does...unfortunately, most pols are 'floaters' and have insulated themselves with so much fiber that somebody is prolly gonna hafta reach in and *fish em out* to fix the plumbing...
my graphic .02 heheheh...
Ten year plans are for suckers.
22 billion in cuts in 2012? That not a cut, thats a slap in the face and a kick in the butt to America.
Freeze the Ceiling...that would mean over one hundred billion dollars saved every month.
FREEZE IT NOW.
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.