Posted on 01/21/2013 6:48:16 PM PST by TurboZamboni
Barack Obama’s top political aide used an Inauguration Day interview to sketch out a provocative political strategy intended to split the Republican Party in time to impact the 2014 midterm elections.
“The barrier to progress here in many respects, whether it is deficits, measures to help economy, immigration, gun safety legislation … is [that] there are factions here in Congress, Republicans in Congress, who are out of the mainstream,” White House advisor David Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”
“We need more Republicans in Congress to think like Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance,” he claimed.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Romney ran on a pro-choice platform, in the party that is supposed to be pro-life, the rinos have supported candidates running against GOP nominees.
He and his liberal branch of the GOP are destroying the party.
“I want my rhetoric to be damaging”
Of course you do - you can’t articulate your position in any coherent manner so you just scream and yell:
“I’m more conservative than you na na na na na”
Which means nothing... you are just another of Plouffey’s spooks.
“”you just scream and yell” he screamed.”
Again no point.... what are you typing?
am I conversing with a chimp?
Deny the humanity of people you disagree with. That is absolutely CLASSIC demagoguery.
“That is absolutely CLASSIC demagoguery.”
So now you are saying I’m espousing demagoguery by asking a questions?
Go back and look and at my post - it was a question not a statement - unlike your statements “...you are just stupid..”.
Just go away, and take the nasty attitude with you.
Yea, that’s what I’m saying. I’m surprised you needed clarification.
“Yea, that’s what I’m saying. I’m surprised you needed clarification.”
Well you are wrong.... go back to your thesaurus and find some other big words to use, but try to attached them to a point on the original subject matter.
I notice clar-i-fi-ca-tion has five syllables. I'll try to keep them under three from now on.
“I notice clar-i-fi-ca-tion has five syllables.”
Very good...
Now attached it (and some more words) to your point in the original post. If you can’t use 5 syllables it’s ok to use less.... it’s not the size (of the words) - it’s how you use it.
During Bush’s term, Federal spending increased significantly and permanently. So if someone tells me Bush cut taxes, and he isn’t being ironic, then that person is stupid.
The self evident does not need defending.
“So if someone tells me Bush cut taxes, and he isn’t being ironic, then that person is stupid.”
So in your mind the Bush tax cuts are what?
(I’m not arguing if Bush cut taxes, or your notion that spending and taxes are the related)
Part of the original point was that the Tax Cuts implemented in the Bush years was made permanent - and that is a good thing.
So now try to respond without calling me stupid...
An illusion, something to distract the bubbas while their pockets were being picked. Spending is the primary issue. How you finance it is secondary.
“How you finance it is secondary.”
Spending is important - no doubt, but tax cutting has a more immediate effect on the economy (which is good for politicians), by putting more money in “bubbas” pockets to spend.
Theoretically then as the “bubbas” spending increases then GDP goes up, employment increases, and revenue to the government goes up - which leads to a balanced budget.
That assumes that the debt hasn’t grown too much and the Fed can hold the interest rates down. Else the interest payments will eat all the revenue, unless inflation makes the debt relatively small.... on and on.
Anyway - I would have been fine going over the cliff and Obama taking the political hit. I’m also equally, if not more fine with the Tax cuts being made permanent by the dems and sticking them with the payroll tax hike, when they said they weren’t going to raise taxes on the middle class.
Congress owns the budget - they need to submit one that will cut out stupid departments and spending. They need to quit letting Obama have that responsibility. Spending is part of the budget process, I think that is submitted in April.
It seems like you have more on your pocket but in a thousand different ways we are all poorer.
Bush wasn’t as bad as the guys he defeated but admit it, on fiscal issues he was terrible.
“Bush wasn’t as bad as the guys he defeated but admit it, on fiscal issues he was terrible.”
I liked Bush, he gave me the impression of being an honest guy - and he takes some blame, but the guys I think who were terrible was Hastert and Frist - those two were a waste of time and if you want to call someone names those two SOBs wasted 4 years of opportunities. They also could of fixed the mortgage crap before it exploded.
The Republicans could have done anything they wanted, and the best we got was those tax cuts.
And I don’t have any more in my pocket than everyone else, and thanks to Ben & Obama we are all poorer everyday.
Be well my friend. We aren't that much different.
The Financial Reform Act of 2005, a McCain creation, was designed to reform Fannie & Freddie's ruinous lending policies.
The 'Rats filibustered it. Whereupon, the 'pubbies threw up their hands and went on to other congressional mischief.
If the bill was as important as they said it was -- turned out, it was -- they could've at least made a bigger issue of it.
“Be well my friend.”
Thanks you too.
Something the separates conservatives from Republicans? Oh NO! Don’t throw us into the Brier patch.
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.