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
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmmmm, mmmm, mmm! Just sayin...
February 11th, 2011
7:15 pm
It isn’t like the pickings are slim, just sayin…
If these Republicxans didn’t get the message from the voters in November, if they want to act like dummycrats and think that we forgot already, if they’ve succumbed to the greedy sickness of coveting other people’s money, they’re gone, we will try out the next batch of candidates the first chance we get.
We will weed through all the Scott Browns no matter how long tit takes.
Darwin
February 11th, 2011
9:16 pm
Ah, we’re so late to the party. We really didn’t care until a non-white man was elected president. Now we’re really pi$$ed off. Heck, we don’t really think he was even born here in America. For 8 years, we spent. We didn’t care. But now we do. We will cut. Let’s start with that major expansion of Medicare under President Bushwacked. No? That might upset the white majority. Well, let’s dance at the party anyway. As long as they swallow the crap we put out, the music plays. I’m waiting. Remember, it’s all about jobs.
BishopLongStrokes
February 11th, 2011
9:31 pm
I have plenty of youth group activities available in case anyones budgets gets cuts. Ya’ll know how to find me.
Darwin's Problem
February 11th, 2011
9:35 pm
@ Darwin – What’s your problem with white people?
Brent
February 11th, 2011
9:36 pm
It’s not about Obama. I’d be happy to see him make the cuts, as opposed to a Republican counterpart. In fact, there’s plenty to like about BO (he’s trying to close Gitmo, he initiated the end of “don’t ask don’t tell’,…).
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.
Ex Dem
February 11th, 2011
9:51 pm
Obama is worse than Bush. I was so excited in 2008, full of so much hope. But his whole administration is a disaster. I’m not even going to vote in 2012.
old timer
February 11th, 2011
10:03 pm
I’d say the UN…they are wasten our money..just saying
Mickey
February 11th, 2011
10:19 pm
Less foreign aid, 1.5 bill for those corrupt scum bags in Egypt. The joke’s on us.
JoeR
February 11th, 2011
10:25 pm
I agree with Ex Dem. I think Obama is horrible, and I voted for him. I’m done defending that failure of man. I think Hillary would have done a better job. Obama just wasn’t ready, and watching over the past two years I doubt the man will ever be ready. He’s a joke. Bring back Bill Clinton, that man was a great president. He had a great work ethic and love his job and our country. Obama is a clueless embarrassment to the Democratic Party. And he is an embarrassment to this nation.
RealityCheck
February 11th, 2011
10:41 pm
It is really difficult to believe that so many bloggers think that Bush did a good job while in office. Is it selective amnesia or what? At this time we need a nonpartisan approach to the budget crisis. This will involve across-the-board cuts back to the spending levels of at least 2008. There should be no programs or departments exempt from the cuts.
retiredds
February 11th, 2011
11:24 pm
Republicans take aim at some of their favorite targets in the measure, reducing financing to the Environmental Protection Agency by $3 billion — an almost 30 percent cut from current levels. The measure would also block the agency from implementing new emissions regulations, and it would cut more than $100 million in spending on climate change programs.
Bravo!! Let’s pollute the earth! Let’s suffocate on the fumes of the Republicans rhetoric. Let’s degrade creation until it no longer can sustain life as we know it. The garden that was created for our care will be destroyed by the Republicans in the name of …. saving a few pence here and there.
The Original Get Real
February 12th, 2011
12:49 am
All that needs to be said is $14 trillion in debt; does not matter who is to blame, plenty of blame to go around. I say again, $14 trillion in debt; it will not be easy to reduce and yes, it will be painful…
Light on Policy
February 12th, 2011
1:29 am
Just as I anticipated Kyle no where in this ideological rant did young mention the lionshare of Federal spending, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense..but as you stated these new lawmakers are doing “right by their voters” Now would that be perception or reality
John
February 12th, 2011
1:48 am
Glad to see Republicans still have their priorities in order…cuts to programs like WIC to feed to poor, education, job training, the environment and nutrition, few domestic programs were left untouched while giving tax breaks to the ultra rich.
43 percent cut in border security fencing and at the same time claim Obama is not doing enough to secure the border. What happened to all their yelling about illegal immigration?
John
February 12th, 2011
1:55 am
“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. ”
You also have to take a look at the total amount you’re bring in. It may mean you need a 2nd job or a higher paying job…i.e. raise taxes. But like all Republicans, you only look at one side of the equation and always say it’s a spending problem. In reality, it’s both a revenue and spending problem.
Toby
February 12th, 2011
6:32 am
15 million jobs would solve a lot of problems.
Willis
February 12th, 2011
7:35 am
Depression is on the way. Then what will the Republicans do? More tax cuts for the rich?
Will
February 12th, 2011
7:54 am
Federal spending, as proposed by current President Obama and former President Bush (the most fiscally liberal republican president of this century) are, indeed, unsustainable.
But……because both republican and democrat politicians do not have the political courage to touch the sacred cows of spending (where real savings are to be had), other areas that may be politically popular but have neglible impact on the overall budget will suffer inordinately.
For example, federal funding to provide protection for the Appalachian Trail corridor is insignificant to the overall budget. Cut out all of this spending and the fiscal budget moves a tiny fraction that doesn’t even show up until you move out more decimal points than is reported. But….politicians (not leaders) can get a few votes but saying something like, “wasteful spending on projects like these may make a few tree huggers happy but for real Americans, we were sent here to do better”.
And the band plays on………….
lynnie gal
February 12th, 2011
8:04 am
Yes, it’s so lofty to keep cutting budgets…let’s keep cutting budgets until our children are ignorant, our elderly are choosing between heat and groceries, our libraries are closed, our police and firemen are so few you wait hours for help, our bridges collapse and everyone is sick because they can’t afford to go to a doctor. Yeah, that’s a real lofty vision of our near future.
outsider
February 12th, 2011
8:07 am
Few Americans are really serious about the deficit, and the least serious may be the tea party types. There is no way to balance the budget by cutting only discretionary spending. There just aren’t enough dollars.
A serious look at the deficit would focus on long-term issues (mostly Medicare, but also other entitlements) and radically cut wasteful military spending. We are responsible for 40% of all military spending in the world, and much of it goes for equipment the DoD doesn’t want/need and far-flung bases around the world. We can’t afford the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We also need tax increases and tax simplification, which does not mean a so-called flat tax. We now have the lowest tax revenues, as a percent of GDP (~14.5%), since the Truman administration.
We need to increase infrastructure spending on roads, transit, electrical transmission, etc. (Road improvements are a huge need across the country, but we need transit in places like Chicago, New York and even Atlanta.)
We can’t do this all tomorrow, but it can be done. Canada had a huge budget deficit in the 1990s and solved it with sizable budget cuts and some tax increases. They are now in a much better position than the US, and the Canadian dollar is actually worth more than a US dollar. Unfortunately, we lack the vision and fortitude to do the right thing. We Americans find it much easier to recite bumper sticker slogans about cutting taxes or saving Social Security than to make the difficult decisions.
jconservative
February 12th, 2011
8:31 am
“That those leaders needed additional steel in the first place.”
Nice sentence Kyle. This sentence tells all why the National Debt is $14 trillion instead of a few hundred billion.
History proves that there are two ingredients in government deficits, reduction in revenue and increases in spending. I am afraid we have lost sight of this historical fact.
As of today, 11 straight American presidents have signed into law deficit producing budgets. (Yeah, I know about Clinton’s 3 straight balanced budgets.)
We decided to cut taxes. We talked about cutting spending. We actually did cut taxes. But we did not cut spending. We then had huge deficits and a resulting huge National Debt.
But did everyone get their panties in a wad? No! They were having to much fun living off the fat of the land.
Now, 30 years later, everyone has their panties in a wad because of deficits and debt.
Why did everyone suddenly get their panties in a wad?
It should have happened in 2003 when we created the first trillion dollar entitlement in over 30 years, Medicare Part D. But we did not get excited. We even reelected the president who gave us the new entitlement!
So why all of a sudden?
I do not have an answer.
both parties are only interested in one thing
February 12th, 2011
8:50 am
and that is reelection.
it’s disgusting. we must find the leaders from somewhere who will address medicare, medicaid and the military budgets. until then, we are spinning our wheels and falling into the ditch.
PR in GA
February 12th, 2011
8:54 am
Stop giving aid to illegal aliens… no more medicaid, no more food stamps, stop giving them free health care, workers comp, no more WIC, don’t allow them to register a care under their kids social security, free education, the list goes on and on.. watch the savings for GA grow!!!!! Stop giving employers a slap on the wrist,that use illegal housekeepers and landscapers… I believe if you are serious about saving tax dollars start writing your local representatives and demand action is a start.. If you go to a restaurant and see to many Mexicans, Whatever stop going there!!! GA needs less lip service and more ACTION NOW!!! I moved from NY to get away from the illegals only to come to state where every other person I encounter here either doesn’t speak English or refuses to become legal and TAKE TAKE my tax dollars!!! Does anyone know which STATE is illegal free!!! Please tell me and I’ll find out how their saving tax dollars and I’ll move there!!!!
Mustfi Obeda
February 12th, 2011
8:55 am
The people of the United States need to march in Washington D.C. to remove Obama!
Democrat
February 12th, 2011
8:58 am
Feed, house, and employ me!
Cut It Where It Hurts the Most
February 12th, 2011
9:05 am
Time for the nouveau spendthrifts to cut military spending to the bone. You may dazzle with cuts to proportionately miniscule programs that have the Tpartiers peeing their pants, but you know and I know those are symbolic cuts. If we ever want to make headway against this deficit, we need to re-think our military presence worldwide, and make the Pentagon accountable for every red cent that enters their coffers. It’ll be very interesting if the tea clowns go after their sacred cow. So far, it looks like they only want to go the easy, politically expedient route, which is hypocrisy at its finest.
Still Waiting For the Trickle Down
February 12th, 2011
9:12 am
Anybody have an educated guess when all that wealth is going to start to trickle down? I’ve been waiting since, well, since Reagan sold us this bill of goods.
And working my fool azz off every day in the meantime.
J Reb
February 12th, 2011
9:39 am
Strong spending cuts should begin in Washington starting with the salaries, benefits, expenses, retirement, perks, staffs etc of the members of Congress, the White House, the judiciary, etc. Let’s see members of Congress buy their own insurance and NO retirement money for them serving – ever.
Brad
February 12th, 2011
9:41 am
PR, New York is anxiously awaiting your return.
Road Scholar
February 12th, 2011
9:42 am
Hey Boehmer, where are the jobs? You got the tax break for the rich. Where’s the trickle down? Is it slow because its winter, like maple sap? Speaking of saps! Hey McConnell, where are the jobs?
retiredds: Go post! And thanks for the compliment yesterday.
I wonder when Boehmer will allow the replacement jet engine for a jet that the Pentagon DOES NOT WANT but is made in his district to be cut? Lead by example?
Brad
February 12th, 2011
9:43 am
Or maybe try Sonora.
Churchill's MOM
February 12th, 2011
10:03 am
Why are there no cuts in farm subsidies or the elimination of the ETHANOL rip off?
Churchill's MOM
February 12th, 2011
10:06 am
Good read from WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576138350540761910.html
Finn McCool (Yes, Reps won, they now control a whopping 1/2 of 1/3 of the legislative body.) (Golf Clap.)
February 12th, 2011
10:19 am
Start with foreign aid – if a country like israel, Egypt, Columbia, Jordan, etc, etc, can’t stand on it’s own two feet, then it deserves to fail and go the way of the Roman Empire. Bye bye.
Next, cuts at the pentagon, then with farm subsidies.
real john
February 12th, 2011
10:23 am
For all of you talking about cuts to Medicare, bring it on. Bush has a tremendous idea, but most people are to dumb to realize it. I would be more than happy to elect not to contribute to Social Security. I will take that money and invest on my own. Privatived accouts are and will eventually be the way to go.
Just as most large companies realized 10-15 years ago, that private pensions would ruin their companies and switched to 401(k) matching programs, the Federal and State Governments need to do the same. People are simply going to keep living much longer. The government could give some sort of match and come out much better.
The same with Medicare. I would be happy to elect out and put the money in an account for later in life.
What most Dumbocrats really want, is for the hard working among us just to keep paying for the lazy people who just want to “take” from the Government (i.e. the Americans actually paying taxes)..
real john
February 12th, 2011
10:28 am
P.S. For you Democrats that keep complaining about the ‘EVIL” tax cuts, most of you are benefitting from it too. I’ve said this many times, if you hate the tax cuts so much, don’t take it and write the extra amount as a check to the IRS if you are so concerned with the debt…..Do I have any takers???? I didn’t think so.
Also, your beloved Obama extended the tax cuts. If they were so bad, why did he extend them? Either he knows they are better than letting them expire, or he has not guts??? Hmmmmm
Rafe Hollister
February 12th, 2011
10:34 am
The Dems don’t really want to cut anything other than defense and farm Subsidies (because most farmers are white, I think), so here is an idea.
Republicans pick out $75 Billion in cuts in programs they find offensive, like Public Broadcasting, EPA, Dept of Ed, Foreign Aid, entitlements to illegals.
Then you challenge the Dems to pick $75 Billion they want to cut and dare them to do more. Tell them for every dollar they cut over $75 Billion we will cut the same.
Nothing like a challenge, the more both sides cut the better off we as a nation are. My bet is the Dems would immediately start negiotiating that $75 Billion figure down rather than add to it. They love that government spending.
nels
February 12th, 2011
10:35 am
The 2010 budget was 3.55 trillion. At the current rate of spending, the federal debt is projected to near 20 trillion by end 2015 and will continue to climb, it does not take a university of Georgia finance professor to say that is unsustainable.
Now, the reASON FOR THE DRAMATIC, NO SLOWDOWN CLIMB IS completely psychological. Every citizen of this country wants to be the recipient of the last dollar before national bankruptcy. Every town, county, state and all other organizations want that last dollar. No one wants to cut spending, they want that last dollar bill before “going belly up” U.S. I might add Hosni Mubarak has between 40 and 70 billion dollars making him the worlds richest. U.S. aid has been around 70 billion since he took control of Egypt and their finances.
Darwin
February 12th, 2011
10:45 am
@ Darwin’s Problem – “What’s your problem with white people?”
Maybe because I’m a middle aged white man who’s listened to enough bigotry from family, friends, and co-workers to last a life time. No BS me here man. You and I and everyone else knows that prejudice drives the white voting public. You ever heard of the southern strategy you jerk wad?
Rafe Hollister
February 12th, 2011
10:48 am
You on here who are “waiting on the trickle down or waiting for the jobs” are like a basketball playing waiting on the foul call. The other team has stolen the ball and scored two on the other end and you are complaining at the ref. Life’s tough, get engaged.
real john
February 12th, 2011
11:00 am
Darwin:
Hmmm…maybe thats why 98% of blacks voted for Obama (an astounding figure), but blacks only make up 13% of the U.S. population.
News Flash…the white people actually are the ones who put Obama in power. Even if EVERY SINGLE black person in American voted for Obama, he would still get crushed if a large majority of whites didn’t vote for him as well…
Explain to me how people like Charlie Rangel and whats his name from here in Georgia (who literally thought Guam might tip over if more troops were sent there) keep getting elected. I’m sure it has nothing to do with them being in majority black districts…
It goes both ways buddy. My experience is that black people are WAY more predjudice toward white people.
Red Hammer
February 12th, 2011
11:00 am
Road Kill the liberal bed wetter – “Hey Boehmer, where are the jobs? You got the tax break for the rich. Where’s the trickle down?”
It’s been WEEKS since the Republicans took over the House and gained Senate seats, you mental midget bed wetter. They’ve got a steep hill to climb after FOUR YEARS of job killing by your precious Nanny Pelosi. You start by giving taxpayer WHO PAY TAXES back their money, many of whom OWN BUSINESSES. Tool.
Now moving on to the news of the week and the cluelessness of the White House and incompetence of liberal Demorats………….
“Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000.”
Only 800k? I’d wager many millions. Just wait until small business owners realize how much it will cost them. Great job on them jobs, Nanny Pelosi! Of course, according to her brilliance, the bill had to be passed before we could find out what’s in it. And meanwhile like above, that rotten onion keeps getting peeled back more and more.
Aquagirl
February 12th, 2011
11:09 am
Our financial problems aren’t complicated, listen to Clark Howard, people: until Congress talks about fixing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, it’s all just window dressing.
Small Gov't My A##
February 12th, 2011
11:19 am
What’s the problem, Kyle? DEFICITS DON’T MATTER, RIGHT??? that is the mantra of the Republican Party. Borrow and Spend, Borrow and Spend, Borrow and spend.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Republicans are good fiscal managers. ZERO. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Road Scholar
February 12th, 2011
11:26 am
real john: “…if you are so concerned with the debt”
There are two variables in the debt/surplus equation and revenue is one of them! So if you reduce revenue, the deficit increases! Trickle down? How about ‘trickle up poverty”?
Red Hammer: You are sooooo intelligent with your name calling; I bet your momma is sooo proud! Bless your heart. You can’t remember that Bush was in office fo 8 years, let alone of the promises made by the repubs.
MrLiberty
February 12th, 2011
12:05 pm
Only Ron Paul has ever shown the principled consistency of opposing big government and unconstitutional government. Despite the good intentions of the new crop, the old school losers in the republican party that continue to infest the Congress will work very hard to make their lives miserable unless they vote for the big government programs that keep their big business friens wealthy. Thankfully another Paul is now blessing the Senate with his solid committment to the constitution and both of them keep getting lots of interviews on the main stream media so the american sheeple can finally see what a principled republican is supposed to sound like.
I certainly hope for the best, but the political process has never been used to make people more free, more prosperous, or more secure. Only the free market, absent government interference (not what we currently have) has ever done that.
fred cohen
February 12th, 2011
12:05 pm
Cut to the budget you say? Well alrighty then, how about the elephant in the room..
Get out of Iraq get out of Afghanstan.
Problem solved, let’s move on to other things people.
killerj
February 12th, 2011
12:51 pm
Less Government means more money in your pocket-overbearing,like a gapping hole with no bottom,out of control.Go Tea Party.
Blue Hammer
February 12th, 2011
12:53 pm
“It’s been WEEKS since the Republicans took over the House and gained Senate seats, you mental midget bed wetter. They’ve got a steep hill to climb after FOUR YEARS of job killing by your precious Nanny Pelosi. You start by giving taxpayer WHO PAY TAXES back their money, many of whom OWN BUSINESSES. Tool.”
Conservative crybaby…. Go back to 02/12/2009 and you would have called somebody a crybaby had they said this:
It’s been WEEKS since
the RepublicansObama took over the White Houseand gained Senate seats, you mental midget bed wetter.They’ve gotHe has a steep hill to climb afterFOUREIGHT YEARS of job killing by your preciousNanny PelosiW. You start by giving taxpayer(s) WHO PAY TAXES back their money, many of whom OWN BUSINESSES. Tool.That street runs both ways, kemo sabe!!
Brian
February 12th, 2011
1:28 pm
We have to cut entitlements.
Darwin
February 12th, 2011
1:36 pm
Real John – How would you feel if you lived in a segregated society? We can’t even imagine the way blacks have been treated in this country. Look what’s going on today. Now it’s the Mexicans. Oh I’m sorry, illegal immigrants. I know it’s all about breaking the law. The point is, it’s always somebody else, never us who’s responsible for the economy or government spending. If it was, then the point of this story is that Medicare and SS will be on the chopping block. As well as defense spending. Don’t give me this I’m prejudiced because they’re prejudice routine. The Repubs play lip service to all this because it sells. Look at what they want to cut: EPA, NPR, programs for the poor, etc. Same old same old.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:41 pm
All of you idiots that voted for the Republicans YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED.
These cuts sound like less than what Republicans promised during the 2010 campaign. The pledge was “at least $100 billion.”
YOU HAVE BEEN BAMBOOZLED AGAIN. Did you thionk they were going to listen to YOU? H##l
no! They just wanted your votes. YOU FELL FOR THE OLD OKEY DOKE!
Remember they also promised to create JOBS. THAT IS THE LAST THING ON THEIR GREEDY MINDS.
you have been HAD. Where are the jobs???????????????
S
February 12th, 2011
1:46 pm
The only way to fix the problem is to raise the Taxes on everyone and especially the Rich, who can afford it. What is so hard about that. We have the lowest taxes since 1950’s. Freedom is not Free, it has to be paid for by everyone!
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:46 pm
@Ex Dem February 11th, 2011 9:51 pm
You stupid idiots can’t even give Obama a chance. Let me see one of you do any better. I don’t think so.
Give Obama a chance for goodness sake. ROME WAS NOT BUILT IN A DAY. WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT OBAMA COULD CLEAN UP THE MESS IN JUST TWO YEARS.
Give me a break!
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:52 pm
@JoeR February 11th, 2011 10:25 pm
Let us see if you could do any better. I DONT THINK SO.
Vote for the Republicans and see how much better off you will be. They have lied to the voters. Ask them WHERE ARE THE JOBS???? WHERE ARE THE JOBS???
They are more concerned with reproductive organs (abortions)than creating jobs.
Everyong knows what the bottom line is here. Obama is Black. If he were white we would not be having this discussion. He is smarter than manyt of ‘YOU’.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:59 pm
@John February 12th, 2011 1:48 am
I am so sick and tired of White folks who think they know everything. I could just puke.
Give me a break. You people have railroadED this country into a mess for the several hundred years. Now that a black is trying to fix YOUR mess you want to down grade him. I dont know why he is trying to help America. All of you who want the republicans to lead this country – YOU HAVE BEEN BAMBOOZLED.
For all of you who are not middle or upper class you are in the same boat as black people. Republicans dont give a hoot about you.
Moderate Line
February 12th, 2011
2:14 pm
If you did not cut current defense, social security and medicare which is 53% of federal spending you would have to cut 87% of all other spending to balance the budget. There is absolutely no way that is going to occur.
In 2009 federal receipts were at 14.8% which was the lowest since 1950. However, this does not account for ALL of the deficit. It only accounts for 37% of last years deficit.
Enquiring Mind
February 12th, 2011
2:19 pm
Mr. Wingfield, I’ve only recently begun reading your column. I’m interested in people’s backgrounds so I understand their views. You look very young in your picture. What is your background? Did you grow up middle class. Did you ever have to go to bed hungry? Do you have thousands of dollars in student loans to repay?
Linda
February 12th, 2011
2:19 pm
S@1:46, The fed. govt. spent every dime it took in from taxes, other revenues, all of social security & all of Medicare. What they couldn’t tax, they borrowed from China. What they couldn’t borrow, they printed out of thin air. What proof do you have that the fed. govt. would stop spending & use the revenue from higher taxes to pay down the natl. debt?
How many months more out of the year do you think the rich should work than the middle class?
Since you think freedom “has to be paid for by everyone,” do you think that the 47% of Americans who currently pay NO fed. income tax be taxed just like the other 53%?
Darwin
February 12th, 2011
2:35 pm
There’s a related story on ajc.com where the House GOP unveils their $61 billion spending cut plan.
“From education to job training, the environment and nutrition, few domestic programs were left untouched — and some were eliminated — in the measure, which is expected to reach the floor for a vote next week.
Among the programs targeted for elimination are Americorps and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
In contrast, spending on defense and veterans’ programs were protected.”
I rest my case.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
2:35 pm
The fed. govt. is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it is spending! Simplified, we have to ELIMINATE 40% of the fed. govt. just to BREAK EVEN! To pay down the natl. debt, we need to cut another 5-10%. That means we need to cut the fed. govt. in HALF. That means we need to eliminate entire departments & programs.
The fed. govt. is spending close to $4 Billion PER DAY on interest alone. Interest on the debt will equal military spending by NEXT YEAR!
Marilyn
February 12th, 2011
2:58 pm
All the Americans voting for the numbnuts called Republicans are too uneducated to realize how they’re shooting themselves in their own feet!!! I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK. I don’t wnat you to tell me what to do in my bedroom, whom to marry and once and for all, stay out of my uterus!! You want to bring us back to the 18th century with all your nonsense. If you really had your way, you would probably repeal the vote for women and people of color. Wait until the cuts effect you or someone in your family – then you will be singing a different tune. PAY YOUR TAXES – ALL OF THEM.
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
2:59 pm
@Shame On You — get real. I’m a white, upper-middle class man who voted for Obama and can assure you, he’s not the leader I thought he would be. He’s weak, lacks decisiveness and leadership abilities. I’m a staunch Democrat but don’t know that we made the right decision in 2008. Obama’s race has nothing to do with it as he is mixed….just like most Americans.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:06 pm
Marilyn@2:58, What do you think the definition of marriage should be? What is your definition of human life?
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
3:10 pm
Since you think freedom “has to be paid for by everyone,” do you think that the 47% of Americans who currently pay NO fed. income tax be taxed just like the other 53%?
Everybody should have skin in the game. Had the original tax reduction that was originated by Bush been allowed to expire as it was passed, that 47% would be down in the low to mid 30’s. The Bush Tax Rebate was the reason that number increased to 47%. It was all done by the GOP, so you have to fault your conservative leaders for that first and foremost. Obama’s guilty for wanting them to be extended.
It’s going to take a combination of spending cuts in all areas of the budget and an increase in the number of people and the amount of taxes paid to get us out of our fiscal mess. Tax increases alone will do nothing, and spending cuts alone will not do it either.
The Original Get Real
February 12th, 2011
3:14 pm
Road Scholar….I am willing to give the Republicans in the House a reasonable chance to turn the ship around, clearly you are not…
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
3:17 pm
@Linda — do you really think you’re going to change anyone’s mind on those topics? Certainly not going to change mine..
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:19 pm
Southern@3:10, O & the Dems. have no intention of cutting spending. They will spend all revenues from any tax increases.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:20 pm
Native@3:17, What topics?
The Original Get Real
February 12th, 2011
3:21 pm
Shame on You
Sounds like you have some serious issues, calm down and gain some sort of perspective or seek therapy…
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
3:23 pm
@Linda: definition of marriage and when life begins…
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:26 pm
Native@3:23, I just asked two questions.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
3:27 pm
Linda
As long as the GOP is not touching defense or entitlements, they have no intention of cutting spending other than small insignificant things that only look good on a bumper sticker. Try as much as you wish, but both parties are equally culpable in spending taxpayer’s money with ease. They just choose to spend it in different areas.
Le Bourgeois
February 12th, 2011
3:35 pm
“Mandatory expenses” are only mandatory from prior legislation. New legislation can be installed to negate prior years’ mandatory expenses and create new mandatory cuts.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:54 pm
Southern@3:27, Really?
Bush tried to “touch” entitlements.
When Bush was elected 8/00, the debt was $5.674T. On 10/1/08 before he left office, it was $10.025T, which meant that $4.351T was added on his watch, with an average of $544 B per year added to the debt.
When Obama was elected 8/08, as I said, the debt was $10.025T. On 10/1/10, it was $13.562T, which means that $3.537T has been added on his watch, with an average of $1.8T per year added to the debt.
Obama had averaged adding 3 1/4 times as much to the debt annually than did Bush.
Bush added $814 B more to the debt in 8 yrs. than O has in 2 yrs.
O & the Dems. spent over $800B on the Economic Stimulus bill less than 3 weeks after he was inaugurated. It took Bush almost 3 yrs. to add that much to the debt.
Since Pelosi became speaker, $5 T was added to the debt (as of 10/10).
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
4:15 pm
Bush tried to “touch” entitlements.
And the result was the largest ever entitlement program signed into law, without funding to pay for it. Even respectable Conservative publications seem to disagree with what you’re saying…
Cato:
President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bailouts enacted under his watch. (For FY2009, $154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie and Freddie).
Spending in Bush’s first year (FY2001) was $1.863 trillion, thus he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending, which includes defense, domestic, entitlements, and interest. Even without TARP and Fannie/Freddie, spending was up a huge 70 percent under Bush over eight years. By contrast, total spending under eight years of President Clinton increased just 32 percent. These are the overall increases in nominal dollars.
National Review:
An update on yesterday’s post: Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation writes, “Under President Bush, 2001-2005 entitlement spending jumped 33 percent (7.3 percent annually). True, much of that is spending on autopilot. But the President failed to reform these runaway entitlements, and also added a massive farm subsidy expansion.
“And that’s not counting the Medicare drug benefit, which will cost almost $800 billion in the first decade, and trillions in the decades thereafter. By no standard is that holding down spending.”
Cato:
In some respects, President George W. Bush has pursued policies similar to those of Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Bush entered office with an ambitious plan to cut taxes. Like Reagan, Bush has supported a large defense spending build-up. But a stark difference in fiscal philosophies is evident with regard to nondefense spending. While Reagan attacked the “destructive pattern of runaway spending,” as he called it in his second budget, Bush has expanded a wide array of “compassionate” welfare state programs.
You can try to paint things as one-sided as possible, but it takes two to tango. I’ll even go on record saying that the next president after Obama, whether (R) or (D), will have more added to the deficit than Obama. One thing about accounting, the interest on $14 Trillion is more than the interest on $10 Trillion, which is more than the interest on $1 trillion. Regardless to what amount is added to the deficit, the interest is accumulated on the total amount, not just what’s added in a year.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
4:22 pm
@Native Atlantan February 12th, 2011 2:59 pm
Obama weak? Give me a a break. If he was ranting and raving, cussing and fussing you would say he was a mad black man. Obama is who he is. Intelligent, mild mannered and thoughtful. Thoughtful in the sense that he does not go willie Nillie about everything. I have faith in him and I will not betray him. Just like everyone stood by George Bush when he got us into debt with a fake war.
I will take Obama over any of those idiots in Washington. You can betray Obama – that’s on you.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
4:26 pm
@The Original Get Real February 12th, 2011 3:21 pm
Yes I do, YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is nothing original about you. You sound fake as most of you do.
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
4:39 pm
@Shame On You — Being strong does not equal ranting and raving. Being strong means being decisive, making the tough decisions, not backing down. Unfortunately, I’d say Obama has betrayed those who voted for him. I certainly haven’t moved to the right and attacked or dismissed everything thing he or the First Lady have done but I continue to express MY disappointment in his lack of leadership.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
4:41 pm
Southern@4:15, Let me explain a few things to you, simplified. First of all, there is a budget with PROJECTED (expected) revenues & expenses & spending with a PROJECTED deficit or surplus (God willing). The PROJECTED deficit can vary greatly from the ACTUAL deficit. At the end of the year, the ACTUAL deficit is added to the DEBT.
If you will re-read my comment above, you will see that I did not use the words budgets, revenues, expenses, deficits, outlays or costs. All my figures were based on the DEBT. The natl. debt of over $14 T is the major issue.
Whoever said that deficits don’t matter was right to a degree. You can’t even have a budget deficit if you don’t have a budget, which the Dems. never got around to presenting last year. It’s the debt that matters.
I did not paint these numbers. I obtained them from the US Treasury Dept.:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Your interest calculations are 5th grade math.
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
4:50 pm
@Southern – don’t get Linda started….she’s the biggest right wing troll on this site. A bit on the angry side she is.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
5:10 pm
There is only one way for the US to get ourselves out of our fiscal crisis. That is by providing our own energy. We are the laughing stock of the world. We have enough of our own natural resources to last for centuries but have let the environmentalists influence lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for decades.
Pelosi said we couldn’t drill for our own oil in an effort to SAVE THE PLANET! We buy most of our oil from 1. Canada & 2. Mexico. Which planet does she think they are on?
Our 3rd source is Saudi where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from & who is known to fund terrorism. Is the US paying for both sides of the War on Terrorism?
16 to 18% of our entire defense budget goes to protect the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf.
The oil companies were forced to drill in risky deep water by the fed. govt. who then shut down drilling in the Gulf when there was a spill. We wonder why gas has gone up?
The fed. govt. decided ethanol was the way to go. We wonder why food has gone up? We are burning our food in our gas tanks! There are over 4000 products in the grocery store that contain corn. What products don’t contain corn, eat corn (meat).
The feds. say we aren’t experiencing inflation. The inflation index does not include oil or food. Maybe they should visit a grocery store or fill up a car.
Isn’t it ironic that govt. lands not being used are those that are rich in our natural resources? Obama is planning on seizing another 10 M acres from Montana to N.M.
We are fools to allow the govt. to hold us hostage to the Middle East, especially now. Let’s get out of the fiscal crisis, the Middle East crisis, our energy crisis & our national security crisis all at the same time.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
5:14 pm
Native@4:50, Thank you for the compliment. I’ll remember you in my prayers.
Michael H. Smith
February 12th, 2011
5:39 pm
we don’t need supposed fiscal conservatives to restrain their restraint.
The only time a Conservative should be allowed to do something liberal is when they CUT the federal government in its physical size, scope of authority and its’ ability to spend.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
5:39 pm
Your interest calculations are 5th grade math.
Well, if you can’t acknowledge the fact that interest on the DEBT adds to the DEBT, you didn’t pass 4th grade. I know you right wing people hate Obama and everything he stands for. That’s understood. That’s no different than the left wingers hating Bush and everything he stood for. However, while you two are playing tug of war over who caused the problem, the problem is getting worse.
It’s time to quit squabbling over who did what, and fix the problem. Making big cuts in the smallest part of the budget IS NOT going to solve it. Even if the GOP got rid of every liberal program there was, we’d still run a deficit, and add to the DEBT. Until both parties decide to cut across the entire budget, the GOP only get’s credit for bumper sticker cuts. The miniscule cuts they’re proposing now is like trying to banage a shotgun wound with a bandaid.
Winfield J. Abbe
February 12th, 2011
5:55 pm
This is all smoke and mirrors. All each side wants to do is get through the next election cycle without doing anything. These are politicians of “hope and lies”. But if they continue to do nothing, nature will eventually take its course and we will all end up with our country controlled by others.
Here are the serious cuts they must make and now, today: End all wars immediately. They are costing billions of dollars per day that we don’t have. End all foreign aid now, immediately. Cut the pentagon budget about 90%. Cut the State department budget by 90%. We have enough nuclear and other weapons to destroy the whole earth and make it uninhabitable. End the failed war on drugs. End the failed war on cancer. End all this aid to cities and states. Eliminate all these foreign bases. Abolish NASA. Abolish the dept. of Education. Abolish the corrupt NCI, NIH and FDA all corrupted by the pharmaceutical companies. Abolish the NSF which is little more than academic welfare. Cut the secret FBI and CIA budgets by 75%. Abolish the corrupt and secret federal reserve bank. Many more suggestions could be made. Again, ether Congress cuts seriously now, or nature will destroy our country automatically. There is no choice. No person, business or country can continue to operate on borrowed money. Taxes must also be increased in parallel with these cuts.
The massive debt is now about $46K for every man, woman and child and even these statistics are too low.
Michael H. Smith
February 12th, 2011
5:58 pm
Even if the GOP got rid of every liberal program there was, we’d still run a deficit, and add to the DEBT.
Say what?
Ahem… Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are liberal programs and they are in fact the greatest portion of the federal budget. Getting the entitlements, as they are called, in fiscal sound shape will come very close to balancing the budget. Add cutting the federal bureaucracy in about half or more would probably make reaching the goal of balancing budgets a real possibility.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
6:08 pm
Southern@5:39, I didn’t disagree with your calculations on interest. They are so elementary that I still question why you brought them up. I said @ 2:35 that we’re spending $4B per day on the interest on the debt.
I don’t hate Obama. I don’t know anyone who hates Obama. I can say many great things about him & have defended him several times. It’s just that I disagree with most of his policies. He was the most liberal member of the Senate, even more liberal than the member of the Socialist Party.
Yes, there are those on the left who hate Bush, not just his policies, him. The left is notorious for hate.
Who are “you two?”
You are the one who said, “Both parties are equally culpable in spending.” My comment @ 3:54 was to prove that statement was not true. As a matter of fact, Obama is on tract to add more debt than the 43 prior presidents combined.
We can’t fix the problem. That IS the problem. Obama has no intention of cutting spending. It does not matter what the Reps. do. It does not matter what the House or the Senate does. It did not matter how the American people voted in 11/10. Obama will veto any significant spending cuts. The fed. govt. will probably shut down in March. We are doomed.
Toby
February 12th, 2011
6:09 pm
As long as we don’t cut defence, what’s the good if you can’t destroy the world ten times over.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
6:12 pm
Say what?
Those spendhappy GOPers would take any money saved and throw it into their pet projects. If you think otherwise, they have you fooled. If you think otherwise, just “Go Fish Georgia”.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
6:13 pm
Winfied@5:55, I like you! Did you get your common sense from your mother or your father? Can we at least keep NCIS & CSI? I watch them every week.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
6:17 pm
Who are “you two?”
The Republican Party and the Democratic Party…. They’ve both added to the federal debt. Any attempt to try to put it all on one party is being intellectually dishonest.
The fed. govt. will probably shut down in March. We are doomed.
We were not doomed in the 90’s and we will not be doomed now. If we go down, we’ll pretty much take the world economy down. I don’t think anyone will let that happen.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
6:43 pm
Southern@6:17, “You two,” as if you were not a Dem.?
I’ve already stated exactly the amt. of debt added by the Bush & Obama adms., citing the Dept. of the Treasury. No one is trying to put it all on one party, but it is one party that is on tract to add more debt than the last 43 adms. combined.
What’s different in ‘11 from ‘95 is the difference between Obama & Clinton. It will not go well.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
7:03 pm
Nope. Not a Dem. Not a Repub either. As the offspring of a politician, I learned early in life not to trust any politician farther than you can throw them. In today’s political climate, the far right is so vocal that most people would appear to be a Dem. By current standards, even Reagan would be a Dem.
I simply think both parties share equal blame for our financial situation. It’s not a matter of who did what or when they did it. Both parties have had control of the steering wheel, and both parties could have done things long ago that would have helped us out financially.
For example, under Reagan, federal pensions were changed to where they rely more on a 401k type account versus a taxpayer funded pension. Clinton had welfare reform that actually required people on welfare to work. There’s been bright spots, but as of lately, both parties have dropped the ball.
AmVet
February 12th, 2011
7:16 pm
Neo-cons pretending to be fiscally responsibility is utterly laughable.
They only understand one thing – borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend. And then spend some more.
And on top of that giveaway hundreds of billions of dollars of our money annually to their cronies in BIG business.
It is no different that pretending that hardened criminals are trying to fix lawlessness…
Rafe Hollister
February 12th, 2011
7:18 pm
I would say something but Linda is doing an excellent job stating the fiscal situation we are in. Saw a headline today describing Obama’s budget proposal, that he presents this week, the headline said something to the effect that Obama uses scapel, no one will feel much pain. His approach is just Nero fiddling again.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
7:39 pm
Southern@ 7:03, I’m respecting you more by the minute.
If you’re not a Dem. or a Rep., what are you? If you’re not a Dem., why are you defending the Dems.?
If you don’t trust a politician in today’s “political CLIMATE,” does that mean that you don’t think the DC politicians can control the CLIMATE of the world, when they can’t even control the border?
I totally disagree with your comment about Reagan. I know he didn’t cut spending as much as he should, but he was definitely for small govt. If he were alive today, he would be protesting with the Tea Party members.
No, both parties do NOT share equal blame for our financial situation. No party is blameless, but one party was the cause. I was right there for 30 yrs. 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. It was an attempt to get votes, as usual.
It IS a matter of who did what & when they did it. The progressives have removed & are continuing to remove segments of our history from our textbooks & are therefore trying to prevent us from repeating mistakes of the past. We are repeating mistakes today in attempting to stimulate our economy that have never worked.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
8:02 pm
AmVet@ 7:16, So you are in disagreement with the Treasury Dept. figures that I posted?
So you are in disagreement with the fact that Obama is on tract to add more debt than the last 43 adms. combined?
So you have not noticed that it was the Obama adm. & the Dems. that gave away “hundreds of billions our dollars of our money annually to their cronies in BIG business?” What BIG business have they not bailed out, subsidized, saved, etc.?
Until you get a grip on how the progressives have infiltrated & taken over your party, you will not understand what has & what is happening to our country. Do you even know what a progressive is & what the party is up to?
Michael H. Smith
February 12th, 2011
8:11 pm
Say what, again!?
Was there any mention of GOP’ers made by yours truly?
A fiscal liberal is a liberal by any stripe.
Thank YOU!!
Linda
February 12th, 2011
8:39 pm
Rafe@7:18, Thank you for your confidence.
Obama did not even address the debt in this State of the Union Speech until near the end.
Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would cut spending by $400 B in 10 yrs.
Obama said in his interview with Bill O’Reilly that he would cut spending by $400 B in 5 yrs.
Do the math. It has been reported that we are spending close to $4 B per day just just on the interest to service the natl. debt. If the interest is only $3.5 B per day, Obama’s cuts, per the State speech, will only save us 11.43 days of interest over 10 yrs.
Obama spent the last part of his State Speech talking about INVESTING (translated: spending even more money that we do not have, borrowed from China or printed from thin air by the Federal Reserve, causing even more inflation) to build infrastructure (translated: bailing out the unions).
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.
Sister Mary
February 13th, 2011
8:54 pm
We all need to march in the streets and have obama thrown out of office!
seabeau
February 14th, 2011
7:18 am
5% cuts in all programs per year,including Defence for 5 years. Cut ALL Foreign Aid out.
Still Waiting For the Trickle Down
February 14th, 2011
7:47 am
Where were all the tea partiers when Bush was engaging us in 2 wars of aggression for which he had no exit strategy whatsoever? When the costs were discussed, it was anti-patriotic to suggest them to be a money pit.
Same people, same issue, different result with a Democrat in office. Yawn. You folks are nothing if not predictable.
jt
February 14th, 2011
8:39 am
TARP-baby Ryan’s middle name is “Wobbly”.
Do fiscal conservatives actually have faith in Paul Ryan?
There is one born every minute.
Ron Paul 2012.
Morrus
February 14th, 2011
8:58 am
K, please tell me you are writing something about the doublespeak going on with Republicans, aka-border control, and the immigration bills that are struggling thru their rhetoric.