House GOP must not go wobbly on spending cuts
The good news out of Washington is that conservative House members, including a number of newcomers, appear to be stiffening GOP leaders’ resolve to cut federal spending.
The bad news? That those leaders needed additional steel in the first place.
Many of the millions of Americans who voted for Republicans last year, shifting power in the House away from Democrats on a historic scale, did so despite harboring worries that the new GOP majority wouldn’t deliver on its lofty promises.
It was only four years earlier, these voters remembered, that they’d cast out Republicans who had proven not to be fiscal conservatives. Worries remained, particularly among independents, that Republicans might fall off the wagon again if given the chance.
It’s safe to say those who voted Republican anyway found the alternative — two more years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi — untenable. The balloting was less a celebration of Republicans than “a restraining order” on Democrats, as P.J. O’Rourke wrote in an election-eve essay in the Weekly Standard titled “They Hate Our Guts.”
That said, Republicans’ actions until late last week threatened to those nagging doubts in voters’ minds into reality.
Many conservatives groused when Kentucky’s Hal Rogers was reinstalled as Appropriations chairman even though the committee was far too spendthrift when he last presided over it. On cue, Rogers’ initial proposal for the rest of the fiscal year — which ends Sept. 30, and whose budget is an open issue because Democrats didn’t pass spending bills last year — included just $35 billion in cuts.
That’s less than 1 percent of this year’s spending, which the Congressional Budget Office recently projected at $3.7 trillion.
And if these cuts sound like less than what Republicans promised during the 2010 campaign, you’re right. The pledge was “at least $100 billion.”
Republicans might — might — have had an argument had they tried to prorate the $100 billion in cuts from this year’s budget, and then taken the full amount from next year’s budget. Then, they might — might — have argued they didn’t anticipate Democrats’ dropping the budgetary ball, and could do only so much in the rest of 2011. But that’s not what they did at first.
As of Friday, it appeared deeper cuts were on the way: $170 billion over 12 months, though it was still unclear as of this writing how much would come in this year’s budget.
How refreshing to see a spending debate in Congress lead to more cuts, not fewer. The freshman lawmakers who pushed their leaders this way are doing right by their voters.
But there’s more to be done. The specific promise was to “cut government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.” That pledge was generally considered a reference to 2008 (although that year did include a $152 billion stimulus).
In 2008, the federal government spent just less than $3 trillion. The last I checked, the difference between that and this year’s $3.7 trillion is a lot more than $100 billion.
Seven times more, in fact.
Now, the pledge may have referred only to discretionary spending, which is a fraction of total federal outlays. But that’s a typically D.C. way of thinking about spending. When families sit around the kitchen table to talk about tightening the belt, as so many members of Congress described last year as candidates, they don’t say, “Well, the rent went up, and so did the car insurance, and our property taxes. But those are mandatory expenses, so we’ll just borrow the money to pay for those increases and only worry about budgeting when it comes to everything else.”
No, sooner or later, you have to look at the total amount you’re spending. And if there are mandatory items you can’t cut, then you cut deeper where you can to make up for them.
Now, back to those 2008 spending levels. Even a prorated return, over the rest of this fiscal year, would mean some $360 billion in cuts.
And even then, we would add $1.1 trillion to our debt…
…which would still grow to more than $14.5 trillion…
…which would still be about $4.4 trillion more than it was after 2008.
At such heights — or maybe I should say depths — we don’t need supposed fiscal conservatives to restrain their restraint.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
155 comments Add your comment
AmVet
February 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
AmVet@ 7:16, So you are in disagreement with the Treasury Dept. figures that I posted?
You presume I read any of your posts until I saw my name in the 8:02. I did not.
You are a very accusatory person. And frankly a bit rude.
If you would like to engage in civil discourse with me, where we both drop the attitude and rhetoric, let me know. I’m pretty sure we can learn much from each other. Or as you said, do the math.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 12th, 2011
8:54 pm
Oh yeah, so now the Republicans are the party of borrow and spend.
Uh huh.
The Original Get Real
February 12th, 2011
9:00 pm
Shame on You @ 4:26 pm
You need some meds and again you need to gain some perspective. If you are of the opinion that Obama can do nothing wrong then you have clearly injected gallon upon gallon of Kool-Aid and are beyond reasonable, objective thought.
I think Obama is a very intelligent and thoughtful individual but I also know that he is the most ill prepared POTUS in the history of the country. Again, this does not make him a bad person as I believe he truly believes he is doing the right thing.
You need to take emotion out of your postings as it only comes across as babbling rants…
AmVet
February 12th, 2011
9:16 pm
Oh yeah, so now the Republicans are the party of borrow and spend.
Now, Andy?
BIG government Reagan, borrow and spend economics, 30 years on, or trickled down.
And in comparison to the latest cataclysm, that S & L debacle looks pretty tame now, doesn’t it?
Oh by the way….the Democrats in Washington and elsewhere are equally greedy. And culpable.
Duh!
So what? That’s supposed to make it OK?
We are royally screwed…
Linda
February 12th, 2011
9:19 pm
AmVet@ 8:45, You left a comment @ 7:16 on a Saturday night. Kyle is not usually here on Saturdays or Sundays. Who were you addressing? This is a blog. If you do not read comments from other posters, who do you expect to read yours? I read yours. You should have the decency to read mine & others who have taken their time on a weekend to post.
Yes, I have finally gotten to the point of being accusatory. Defend yourself & your comments.
I’m rude? Conservatives, especially Tea Party conservatives, have been called every name in the book by liberals. The more liberal liberals are, the more hateful they are.
I have been on this blog for many hours today & I have been civil, fair & honest. If you can refute one comment that I have said, please do so. Man up. I’m waiting for you, as are others. It appears that you can dish it out but can’t take it.
The Original Get Real
February 12th, 2011
9:33 pm
Go Linda Go!!!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 12th, 2011
9:37 pm
AmVet- Yeah man, I hear ya, but the democrats are seeing the bet and raising it.
To the limit.
AmVet
February 12th, 2011
9:40 pm
I’m rude? Conservatives, especially Tea Party conservatives, have been called every name in the book by liberals. The more liberal liberals are, the more hateful they are.
How can I debate that? You stereotype, but complain about…………stereotypes.
Yes, I have finally gotten to the point of being accusatory.
See? I wasn’t wrong.
The way I see it Linda, the key for me to having a happy and fulfilling blogging experience is to not make it or take it personal.
I lambaste public figures, celebrities, ideas, etc. ONLY.
I do not attack other bloggers. I do not make unprovoked *personal* insults. I was not raised to be needlessly confrontational and to look for the worst in people.
Again, I have taken no exception to any of the data you’ve posted. But you are obsessed with me invalidating it. Why? Or again to use your words, manup. (Or is that sexist?!)
And yes, I’m positive what you say is true. Sadly, some “contributors” offer nothing but verbal abuse and invective. (Go to C. Tucker’s if you haven’t already…)
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
9:41 pm
Linda
Sorry about the delay… It’s NASCAR season…
I defend Dems in some areas and Repubs in others. Haven’t stated it here, but on another ajc blog, I’ve said that I hope the GOP succeed in what their goal was in cutting spending. I just think they’re going about it the wrong way.
Reagan did good things that people love to remember, but they don’t want to remember the backdoor tax increases that he signed off on while in office. As a federal employee, I know that the current number of federal employees is nearly the same as when Reagan was in office. However, you can’t say the same thing about the population we serve.
Politicians can’t and don’t control the border or the climate. The best they can do it pen legislation and hope their legislation has positive effect on either. I know, firsthand, that the border situation isn’t what people make it out to be. I also know that the “secure border” that people want and are demanding will never happen because in our “low tax, small government” thinking atmosphere, nobody’s gonna want to put up the capital it will take to fulfill the people’s wishes.
As a member of the minority class, I have to disagree with you on the RIGHT as you see it. Minorities have just as much of a right to own a home/car as any other citizen of this country. WIthout the literal sweat and blood that was shed by minorities, specifically Blacks, this country would not have come of age economically as fast as it did. Minorities have shed blood in the fields, on the battle fields, and in their own back yards, so I wholeheartedly believe that minorities have a right, just as everyone else does, to pursue life, liberty and happiness. If one can not afford it, one should not purchase it, regardless of ethnic background.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html?_r=1
Check out that story… the housing issue isn’t all minority, or poor people.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 12th, 2011
10:03 pm
Maybe I’m not a Conservative-
Texas Rep. Ron Paul has won the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012 presidential preference straw poll of 3,742 activists, the chairman of the huge annual gathering of conservative activists announced on Saturday.
Just sayin…
Linda
February 12th, 2011
10:13 pm
AmVet@9:40, Sir, respectfully, I have heard you blame Bush & Reps. for many months for EVERYTHING, the worldwide financial crisis on down, without any reason, without any cites, just plain old rhetoric, & frankly, it’s gotten old, that is, stale.
Yes, I have gotten to the point of being accusatory, which I learned from the liberals & have done so to defend my party, my beliefs & myself.
You are definitely confrontational & make unprovoked PERSONAL insults, attacking anyone on the right, with proof tonight, with you accusing (accusatory) me of being accusatory (which I admitted) & rude & implying I wasn’t civil & had an attitude, looking for the worst in me.
I’m not obsessed with your validating the data that I posted. You are not capable nor interested in the truth. You do not matter unless you desire to matter, that is, to make a difference.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
11:09 pm
Southern@9:41, We also had on NASCAR.
Whoa, federal employees have increased dramatically under Obama.
If prisons can control their fences & if Israel can control its borders, the US can & will control its borders.
You are putting words in my mouth. What I said was, ” The cause, the ignition, the match, the catalyst of our economic crisis happened in the 90s & …was social justice, affordable housing, the ideology of the progressives that poor people/minorities had the RIGHT to own their own homes, whether they could afford them or not.” I never said minorities did not have the right to own their own homes. Rights are those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. They differ from privileges such as driving a car, graduating from high school or college, being promoted at work, having a stellar credit rating, playing with the NFL or qualifying for a loan to buy a home. Privileges are earned. Rights are endowed by God.
The NYT article you referred to is about 9 years too late. Check out this one:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
The NYT PREDICTED & WARNED of the economic crisis 2 yrs. before Bush was elected.
itpdude
February 13th, 2011
6:19 am
A war that was funded with borrowed dough and NOW the GOP gets “steel.”
ha ha ha, Wingfeld, don’t you have a job to get to? Remember your kneepads while you service your corporate masters.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
6:39 am
AmVet
February 12th, 2011
9:40 pm
I do not attack other bloggers. I do not make unprovoked *personal* insults. I was not raised to be needlessly confrontational and to look for the worst in people.
HOOEY!
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
6:52 am
Bottom line read is conclusive: The Federal Government is far too big, far too powerful and consumes far too much wealth/money. The Federal Government must be cut drastically in every area regardless of the political parties involved and forced to operate within the boundaries of the Constitution.
Go Tea Party, hold the Fed’s feet to the fire and don’t let up.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 13th, 2011
7:45 am
Obama is expected to propose an initial allocation of $8 billion for high-speed rail this budget year, picking up from last year, when his administration handed out $10.5 billion in stimulus and other funds to get rail projects going across the country. Grants included: -Urinal
Three people hauling ass across the country in a 800 Million dollar choo choo train, isn’t this the signature dummycrat idea that just encapsulates all the other boondoggles we’ve been saddled with the last 2 and half God Forsaken years?
All aboard, moonbats.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 13th, 2011
7:51 am
They said last fall they would cut $100 billion from the federal budget. Once in power, they soon scaled back their goal, though under pressure now from freshman lawmakers backed by the tea party, they’re trying to stick to their original goal. -Urinal
If you are going to lie to your readership, AJC, why not just say that we increased spending, instead of cutting it?
Hell, tell them it’s the Repugs that want an 8 Billion dollar choo choo train that no one rides.
Your readers are too stupid to figure it out on their own, take advantage of them.
Go for it.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 13th, 2011
7:59 am
The Urinal celebrates “freedom” in Egypt by showing pictures of women stuffed into full burkhas with just a slit to gaze upon the world through.
I sure hope “freedom” never comes to America, just sayin…
And why, oh why, does obozo not summon up his awesome Pharaoh powers to rescue the peoples of Iran?
Could it be that his side is already in charge?
hryder
February 13th, 2011
8:36 am
My wife and I are not in debt and only had debt(mortgage), for fourteen years of our over forty three years of marriage. I had no debt while single. What I have ascertained in my lifetime is that most people have no clue regarding budgeting/finances. But this is just one aspect of a more general problem. The greatest problem is the lack of self discipline. If one can not pay for something one does without, and actually saves money until one can pay for the item, a home mortgage is the one exception. Far too many have zero savings, more house than actually needed, and loans on everthing in their possession, which all have outstanding loans. One little thing causing a decrease in income and everthing goes. Get disciplined, save some money, avoid envy, do not believe advertising, and take charge of your life.
With time you will find you control and run your life, not your creditors or the bankruptcy courts.
carlosgvv
February 13th, 2011
8:50 am
Since the Republican Party is completely owned by Big Business, all their decisions will be aimed at pleasing them first. I’m guessing the military industrial complex would not be too happy with big cuts since they receive huge contracts for weapons. There are many other hands in the federal money pie as well. So, look for a lot of lies and hot air from the Republicans and little if any real spending cuts.
AmVet
February 13th, 2011
9:06 am
Michael, it is easy to make a claim, a little more difficult to prove it, huh?
Do so, or retract it.
So, why do you run cover for the plethora of seniorile delinquents on these blogs that do exactly what I have described? Exactly what Linda does?
So in her words, manup and prove your case.
As for her, read her words last night. They are absolutely dripping with contempt and barely cloaked enmity towards me. Yet you give her a completely free pass for being accusatory, rude and insulting. (Not just to me, but to any number of other bloggers here.) All of which was completely unprovoked. You do concur, right?
I wonder why it is that you run cover for her, Michael?
We both know. Because you share the same politics. Nothing more.
The woman lacks in basic manners and has anger and issues. And her condescending faux Christian prayers for people don’t mask them very well…
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:12 am
carlosgvv
February 13th, 2011
8:50 am
If the Republicans don’t make the cuts conservatives have been demanding they will follow the out of touch Socialistic Democrats.
How many were voted out last election?
Can’t wait until 2012.
BWT Obumer is kissing BIG B’NESS butt in case any Socialist Liberals have chosen to ignore the facts? Oh and remind everyone just how many top Obumer contributors make up the who’s who list of Wall Street firms, like Goldmen Sachs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
Now who owns what?
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:18 am
AmVet
February 13th, 2011
9:06 am
Michael, it is easy to make a claim, a little more difficult to prove it, huh?
Yeah, as you say O’ petulant one. LOL! Pal you are nothing but a personal attack machine as your last comment confirms.
Now tell me again about how the Democrats just keep winning and winning and winning?
How’s that winning working for you over in the new Republican controlled House?
Just saying….
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:32 am
Oh the socialist liberals hate facing the dread facts that their socialist liberal agenda has been rejected and is on its’ way out.
Things just aren’t looking to good for socialist BIG GUB’MENT.
How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget
Well, it’s a start. Bet I can find something in defense spending to cut hmm…? Oh maybe the socialist liberals will do it for me?
AmVet
February 13th, 2011
9:35 am
Pal you are nothing but a personal attack machine as your last comment confirms.
By asking you to prove a fallacious claim? No even one example? Nothing? Nada? Zero? Zip?
Wow.
You won’t, you can’t, and you are not remotely ashamed.
Carry on with your silly role and endless red herrings here, Michael.
And by all means, continue to deflect and apologize for the ill-mannered and irrational (You are not capable nor interested in the truth) Linda.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:38 am
Cato scholar Chris Edwards argues that the $646 billion aid system should be cut. “Federal lawmakers,” says Edwards, “would better serve the nation by focusing on national issues rather than trying to fix potholes and run the schools.”
Federal Aid-to-State Programs Top 1,100
by Chris Edwards, editor of www DownsizingGovernment org, Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_63.pdf
Ah, more cuts! Ya gotta love it.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:46 am
Anybody got a knife?
A department-by-department guide to cutting the federal government’s budget.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense oversees a vast array of people and assets at home and abroad. The huge commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan is just part of America’s global overreach. We would improve the nation’s security by adopting a more restrained and defensive strategy. We should cut the number of military personnel and reduce overseas deployments to save money and relieve burdens on military families.
The department will spend about $721 billion in fiscal 2011, or $6,110 for every U.S. household. It employs 2.3 million people, and it spends about $240 billion a year on procurement, research, and construction.
Spending Cuts Summary
* Here are proposed spending cuts to the military, which would save about $150 billion annually after being phased-in over 10 years.
~ Ya gotta’ love it ~
“Our problem is to achieve adequate military strength within the limits of endurable strain upon our economy. To amass military power without regard to our economic capacity would be to defend ourselves against one kind of disaster by inviting another.”
- President Dwight Eisenhower, State of the Union address, February 2, 1953.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:51 am
Tea Party supported candidate and now Senator targets $500 billion in cuts for fiscal 2011
Sen. Rand Paul Proposes Serious Cuts
Paul’s bill would target $500 billion in cuts for fiscal 2011 alone. While audacious by Washington standards, cutting federal spending by that amount would still leave us with a projected $1 trillion deficit this year. Nonetheless, the federal government’s scope would be dramatically curtailed, which would pay dividends in coming years as the economy is unshackled from numerous failed federal interventions.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sen-rand-paul-proposes-serious-cuts
Go Tea Party!
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:54 am
AmVet
February 13th, 2011
9:35 am
You did nothing but confirm MY CLAIMS further that you are an attack machine. I have nothing more to prove, you’ve done the job for me already.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
9:59 am
Carry on with your silly role and endless red herrings here, Michael.
Yeah, sure thing Mr. Fish story. You lost in the last failed attempt to defend the defenseless Jimmy “WHO DID NOTHING” Carter with a Regan ruse that had no connection to Carter’s failure.
Nah, you can carry on with the silliness. My claims have been more than backed up and don’t try to conflate what someone else has said or is saying with or to me.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
10:02 am
Cutting Spending to Revive Federalism
by Chris Edwards
The GOP needs a larger vision to guide their reforms. Republicans need to communicate to the public how a smaller government would benefit America and what federal agencies and activities are damaging and counterproductive.
A key part of this strategy should be to revive a central theme of the 1981 and 1995 budget-cutting drives — getting the federal government out of what are properly state and local activities. Constitutional federalism has taken a beating as federal aid to the states has doubled over the last decade to $646 billion this year. This aid goes to public housing, community development, urban transit, and hundreds of other local activities.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12777
AmVet
February 13th, 2011
10:07 am
My claims have been more than backed up…
Not regarding my request that you provide a scintilla of prof to bolster your empty assertion about me.
Nothing. You’ve done absolutely zero. So quit stalling and cough up this damning evidence.
No worries. Again you can’t and you won’t. We both know it. So do what you do best and keep prevaricating, Michael.
It is what you do.
Ta, gotta finish my taxes…
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
10:17 am
Not regarding my request that you provide a scintilla of prof to bolster your empty assertion about me.
The evidence is on this blog, there is no assertion only your confirmation of your continually personal attacks.
Yeah, go finish whatever… Maybe another fish story, this one sure didn’t work for you.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
10:25 am
One of my all time favorites and a Tea Party target.
Privatizing the U.S. Postal Service
The USPS is structured like a business in that revenues from the sale of postal products generally cover costs, and it receives virtually no federal appropriations. The organization is the second-largest civilian employer in the United States—after Wal-Mart—with about 600,000 workers. If the USPS were a private company, it would rank about 28th on the Fortune 500 list of largest companies.
While the USPS is structured like a business, Congress often prevents it from actually operating like a private company, such as taking actions to reduce costs, improve efficiency, or innovate in other ways. The agency is also obligated by statute to provide mail services to all Americans, irrespective of where they live and the cost of serving them. Furthermore, it is required to deliver first-class mail at a uniform price throughout the nation.
While Congress imposes various costs and obligations on the USPS, it also protects it from competition. The USPS has a legal monopoly over first-class mail and standard mail (formerly called third-class mail). Thus, we have a postal system that encourages high costs and inefficiency, while preventing entrepreneurs from trying to improve postal services for Americans.
The USPS is in deep financial trouble as a result of declining mail volume, bloated operating expenses, a costly and inflexible unionized workforce, and constant congressional meddling. At the same time, electronic communications and other technological advances are making physical mail delivery less relevant.
America’s postal system needs a radical overhaul. This essay discusses the problems of the USPS and looks at some recent postal reforms abroad. It concludes that taxpayers, consumers, and the broader economy would stand to gain with reforms to privatize the USPS and open U.S. mail delivery up to competition.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usps
Get rid of USPS as we know it. This should be a function of the private sector and article 1 section 8 clause 6 should be so amended to make this reality possible.
Michael H. Smith
February 13th, 2011
10:52 am
Cutting $100 billion from the Federal budget should be very easy to do Kyle. There are a lot more cuts that can be made than $100 billion that should be made, as many different sources and voices content. I’ve only posted a few to give people who might read this blog some food for thought as were to speak on the many areas that should be addressed. Of course it will mean the BIG FEDERAL GUB’MENT will become the new LIL FEDERAL GUB’MENT it was always meant to be under the Constitution and will of course restore much of the authority of governance and the administration thereof to the State level where it should rightly be.
As currently, the State governments have no place at the federal table with no chair of representation in the Congress. How few people realize or even begin to comprehend the travesty the 17th amendment to our Constitution has wrought. James Madison, in the Federalist paper number 61 left no room if any as to guess why the founders meant to have the State legislators appoint Senators to represent the interest of their respective State. If the 17th amendment were repealed and Senators again were appoint by State legislators it is very doubtful that any State would face unfunded Federal mandates nor would federal laws such as ObumerCare ever see fruition.
State governments were meant to do an unlimited number of things while the Federal government was meant to do only a very strict limited number of things – et al the Federalist papers 41 and 45.
fair and imbalanced
February 13th, 2011
11:06 am
Kyle,
How did we pay for the tax cuts to the wealthy that you supported?
marko
February 13th, 2011
11:22 am
Fiscal responsibility is Washington’s version of the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. I promise that the few weak symbolic cuts that are made will be at the expense of those too weak to do anything about it. when the smokescreen clears, we will still spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. We will be told that it’s prudent because Osama Bin Laden has purchased a brand new box cutter.
AmVet
February 13th, 2011
11:25 am
The evidence is on this blog…
Third and final request.
Then put your money where your ample mouth is and provide it.
No more copouts.
(I wonder if when Mr. Wingfield reads your puerile posts, he just shakes his head and laughs…)
Back to 1099s…
LeeH1
February 13th, 2011
11:35 am
I’m siding with the Republicans! I only want cuts in the budget of those things that don’t affect me personally.
Keep your hands of local industries, like military contractors; Medicare, so I won’t have to pay Momma’s medical bills myself, Social Security so I won’t have to take in Uncle Joe; tax credits for the rich, because while I can pay for Momma’s bills and can take in Uncle Joe, I want to spend my money on foreign travel!
Besides, when the Republicans say go back to 2008, they didn’t include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget- that was all put on Master Card. It really is unfair for the government to ask that we pay for those things. After all, Rumsfield said the Iraq war would pay for itself out of profits from Iraqi oil production. I just don’t see the money made there coming her. I think Rumsfield et al. lied to us.
But we shouldn’t have to pay for their mistakes. I much preferred a dishonest budget, rather than one that showed where the problems are!
carlosgvv
February 13th, 2011
11:46 am
Michael H. Smith
The Republicans will do what they have always done. They will tell clever lies to their essentially mindless base and keep on spending. Their base, of course, will believe every lie and keep on voting for them.
getalife
February 13th, 2011
12:00 pm
Yeah, cons will continue to bow down for corporate and carry their corporate water so if you want a check on corporate power, vote dem.
quick
February 13th, 2011
2:10 pm
How can reducing the debt and deficit be a polarizing issue? I really don’t understand!
Rafe Hollister
February 13th, 2011
2:27 pm
Carlos, speaking of a mindless voting bloc.
Obama, 12 federal judges have sided with me on healthcare: the ajc truthmeter (a liberal source for sure) FALSE
Obama, I have not raised any taxes: the ajc truthmenter-FALSE
Don’t even need to get onto Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, lobbyist, balance budget, post partisan, ethics, etc. Nuff said about who the mindless plantation folk follow.
getalife
February 13th, 2011
2:49 pm
Roll back your tax cuts cons then:
Ask not how you can get more corporate welfare.
Ask how you can run your corporations without corporate welfare.
Budget balanced.
sasha
February 13th, 2011
3:40 pm
amen to getalife
& to all you others on the black/white issues—you are short on brain cells. You are so pitiful that you can’t think past this.EVERYONE is so tired of YOU! OBAMA is 50% WHITE and I am sooo proud of him. Obama is 50% BLACK and I am sooo proud of him. He is extremely smart—he has accomplished much and will do more. You are so shallow minded. Try to improve yourself for the good of man kind.
Reba
February 13th, 2011
3:44 pm
Get ready>>> we will push for K Reed in 2012 if you are sooo tired of Obama—-we have to have intelligence in these positions….not low IQ’s
carlosgvv
February 13th, 2011
3:49 pm
Rafe Hollister
Unfortunately, there seems to be enough of the mindless voting bloc to go around for everyone.
Rafe Hollister
February 13th, 2011
4:16 pm
Sasha
I don’t care if he is 50% martian and 50% Android and I can’t think of anything he has “accomplished”. Let us see, Unemployment at or near 10%, added 5T or so to our debt, we are still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, Lobbyist still run rampant in the White House, his foreign policy has been a failure, he has insulted many of our allies, he has failed on Cap and Trade, he shut down the domestic oil exploration, he nationalized GM and Chrysler, and I could go on, but I did remember something he did that was positive.
He is giving George HW Bush, the Medal of Freedom, which he truly deserves. Yeah Barry!
Rafe Hollister
February 13th, 2011
4:27 pm
getalife
I get that you are anti corporation, but you need to do some research. Wall Street and the corporatist gave and continue to give to Obama and Democrat campaigns more money than they gave McCain and the Reps. Why do you think Barry has been sucking up to the Chamber of Commerce, he is starting his 2012 reelection campaign and needs their money.
So, continue your mindless hatred of the Corporate folks who fuel the economy and create jobs, but just remember they by and large, the corporations (i.e., Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, etc) support the Dems. Republicans support corporations because they know that America can not survive without a strong free enterprise economy, not because they receive all these campaign donations.
Scary...
February 13th, 2011
8:49 pm
“Nonetheless, we must address the budget like adults. Forget about parties, we must all pay the debt regardless of which “side” we’re on. As long as partisanship is an excuse, it will be counter-productive to the goal.”
Addressing the budget like adults requires both spending cuts and tax increases, like it always has whenever the US has had similar difficulties. It is an ideological idiocy that believes that money will magically appear out of nowhere by cutting taxes while we are in shortfall. It is even MORE of an ideological idiocy that believes that cutting spending in the very areas that will help keep the US competitive, i.e. Education, will result in long term gain.
The Right still believes in the nonsensical trickle-down economics, despite their utter failure to deliver over the past 30 years. While bemoaning the poor middle class and the burden placed on them, they and their cronies have watched Middle-class incomes stagnate and fall during that period while upper class incomes have risen steadily.
Apparently, the DOWN part of “Trickle-down” appears to escape them.