The Republican Road to Recovery
The gloves are coming off as the GOP finally unveils its own budget plan.
March 25, 2009 - 3:27 pm
Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page
On Thursday, Republicans began to roll out their alternative to the president’s gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. While they have yet to spell out exact figures or provide the comprehensive budget itself, the “Republican Road to Recovery” does preview their plan and goes some distance toward shooting down the Democrats’ spin that Republicans have “no ideas.”
The plan is summarized as follows:
- Limits the Federal Budget from Growing Faster than Family Budgets
Instead of spending money on wasteful programs under the guise of “stimulus” and “investments,” Republicans seek to ensure that the federal budget cannot grow faster than families’ ability to pay the bill.
- Provides Universal Access to Health Care and Secures Entitlements
Instead of accelerating the demise of our nation’s large entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and creating new unsustainable entitlements, Republicans seek to provide universal access to affordable health care and to address our entitlements’ trillion dollar unfunded liabilities with common sense reforms that ensure our children and grandchildren can secure future benefits.
- Lowers Taxes
Instead of raising taxes on all Americans in the midst of a recession, Republicans seek to reduce the tax burden on working families and small businesses, in order to create jobs and unlock private capital.
- Keeps Energy and Fuel Costs Low
Instead of taxing all energy users with a new national energy tax that will cost up to $3,128 per household, Republicans want energy independence with increased development of all our natural resources, including renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
- Ends the Bailouts and Reforms the Financial System
Instead of nationalizing our financial system and heaping trillions of dollars of debt on future generations, Republicans want to protect taxpayers and provide a transparent recovery process that does not favor those that have made unsound business decisions. We will ensure that this financial crisis can never occur again.
- Keeps the Cost of Living Low
Instead of returning to double digit levels of inflation and the failed economic policies of the 1970s, Republicans support maintaining the cost of living after witnessing the booms and busts triggered by loose monetary policy.
Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page
DON’T EXPECT HELP FROM THE MEDIA LAP DOGS
This is why newpapers should officially become not for profits!
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/media-lost-in-wilderness.html
Republicans are not going to win by being “Fascism Lite”… sure it’s less filling, but it doesn’t satisfy.
“Will it “work”? Well, it is not going to pass, of course. But that is not its aim. In a sense the Republican budget plan “works” by existing, by reminding voters that massive taxing and spending is not the only alternative.”
Certainly it should be about reminding voters that Taxation does not increase revenue, and that lowering taxes and freeing up wealth to generate more wealth does increase revenue. Why is that NOT the plan?
If Republicans are going to make stupidly complex answers when simple ones not only will do, but are required, they’ll not be taking back any seats in 2010.
Where EXACTLY is the restoration of our manufacturing base mentioned in case nobody noticed that is where wealth is generated from ground up Manufacturing! Also this country could be an Energy Exporter.
Obama Censorship Of Thomas Paine?
Posted: March 26, 2009 01:14 PM
Updated: March 26, 2009 01:17 PM
A YouTube video by actor Bob Basso portraying a modern day Thomas Paine is sweeping this country. Not since “I want my country back” has something so pro-American, so red white and blue, so revolutionary, taken this country by storm.
It calls for the 2nd American Revolution, and that apparently has Obama worried. Unconfirmed reports say that the Obama White House has contacted Basso and told him they would like to “meet” with him, and until then, they would prefer he not discuss the video in the media. Again this is an unconfirmed report.
Please watch this reminder of what our responsibility as a citizen of this country should be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
And to the new administration, just a reminder, we still have freedom of speech. You haven’t taxed us or jailed us out of that…yet.
Tell me your thoughts on Bob Basso’s performance. A Patriot or Subversive?
Clearly I believe he is a patriotic American.
And just in case you are a product of the public schools and never learned about Thomas Paine, please read about the Father of the American Revolution who wrote the phrase “These are the times that try men’s souls” at http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/ .
Well, glad they finally got it together. It would be nice if it included deficit projections, which apparently it doesn’t. My suspicion is that this is because this plan would result in just about the same deficit level as Obama’s (eg, too high). I mean, the taxation rates are certainly lower, and spending isn’t *that* much lower. But it will be interesting to see the numbers.
Bob Basso (Thomas Paine) Silenced! – Jerry Doyle Show
Jerry Doyle Show ^ | 03-25-2009 | Bob Basso
Posted on Wed Mar 25 2009 15:56:53 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) by GraceG
Jerry Doyle has reported on his show that the creator of the viral video in the link above is not appearing on his show due to intervention from the white house and Obama himself.
He has been told not to discuss it on his show.
but he is going ahead and re-playing the audio
in direct defiance of the request from the white house.
The creator of the Viral You Tube video Bob Basso was supposed to be on his show today. This could get ugly, just giving a heads up, this is my first post here. What this appears to be is a direct repression of free speech by the President of the United States.
Bob Basso was told not to talk about his visit to the white house.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2214589/posts
1) Federal budget can’t grow faster than family budget – Arbitrary government, and will be destroyed by the Republicans themselves the first time they see the need. This is for “feel good” general consumption. Tie the spend to the NEED, not an artificial factor. This also means that no stimulus money can be spent, because family incomes are shrinking…translation = “Cut spending during a recession”.
2) Universal access to health care and securities entitlements – Needs definition. “Access” to health care isn’t the problem, affordability is. Fixing “entitlements” is probably also referring to Social Security which is what Bush tried (and failed) to do with privatization, which given what actually happened to the economy would have been disastrous timing.
3) Lower Taxes – Needs definition. However, I bet this is for the wealthy, which is fine (in general), but the first (Bush) stimulus bill taught us that in these uncertain times, the wealthy (banks in that case) held on to the money as a hedge against the recession (or used to buy other healthy banks). I don’t see how we should suddenly believe that giving that money to the wealthy private or other corporate citizen would yield different results until the economy bottoms out.
4) Keeping energy and fuel costs low – The supposed $3,000 cost per household for the current plan is fuzzy math, but even if that were the case, I’ll wait for details. I’m sure this means 75% drilling for oil, R&D money to oil companies, and a paltry little towards wind and solar. This article implies (by even mentioning them) that there will be some kind of meaningful investment here. I tend to doubt it.
5) Ending bailouts of the financial system – I’m all for it. Let’s see them do it. If the massive spending doesn’t fix things, then the Republicans are wrong here too (they just want to spend less). This is an attempt to say that they don’t want to cripple the country financially long term, NOT that they are saying that dumping money in this area doesn’t help…they just say that it’s unsound fiscal long term policy. Which may be right, however if the economy recovers, they can’t argue the impact…they just have to wait to see if it really killed the country long term. Which it might. I’m not a fan of the spending here either, but the Republicans are making a 15 year from now argument, not a 2 year from now argument. Per another thread on this site, it’s quite clear none of you will be giving Obama credit if it works, but you will blame him if it fails, so I’m not sure it’s pertinant really.
6) Keep the cost of living low – I don’t even know what this means from a Bill perspective (without details). It’s a nice concept, lets see what they came up with.
Where were all these republicans in the first 4 years of the Bush administration? I love that they are all now saying they saw this problem in 2001, but that it wasn’t until the Dems took over in 2004 that the whole discussion was quashed. Why couldn’t they do anything in 3 years when they controlled everything? They certainly weren’t busy challenging Bush on war plans (ok, small dig there, but seriously…they could have done something if they truly saw a financial crisis looming during that time, so either admit you didn’t know or that you didn’t do anything…can’t have it both ways…and the change in the mix of dems and repubs should speak to who most Americans blamed for that…if you care…).
All of that being said, I would LOVE it if Republicans could give up the current childish mantra of “I hope he fails” to “I have an idea”. I would like to think that no one voted for their Republican reps just to have them give up and hope for failure as opposed to well, um…governing. If saying ‘no’ and wishing for failure has gotten tiresome, I’m all for it. I can discuss and argue policy, but when you just whimper and cry in despair, well, we just have to move on without you. Keep taking that spine-growing medicine, and welcome back to governing!!
Jack
Oh, and when this package doesn’t pass in it’s entirety, will Republicans be willing to compromise on anything and be bi-partisan, or just go back to ‘No’? I have a feeling if they don’t get what they want, they’ll be as pleased as punch, not try to fight it (other than in the media) and then hope it all fails (i.e. the current plan the republicans have) so they can claim that their plan was superior.
Not leading by leading, leading by hoping the other guys mess up. Really good stuff there.
Jack
#5 Mike Shuster – Good point…I had assumed those figures would have been included as an obvious “here is where we are different” bottom line. But if they aren’t proud of them or worried that it will prove the opposing argument all by themselves, I could see why they wouldn’t want to mention them.
But I thought they were including numbers…I guess just some spending costs, but no plus/minus compared to the current plan on the table…
Jack
If it takes a revolution to save this country then so be it. I’m ready.
This is a joke, right? Broad platitudes, and rosy sounding goals….has anyone wondered why no Republican President since Eisenhower has actually balanced a budget? Why no Republican President has ever controlled spending?
Because the voters, Republican and Democrat don’t want to.
Every penny of “pork” is someone’s vitally needed, absolutely efficient, we-will-die-without-it government program, even if it is a bridge to nowhere.
Telling us you will cut the “waste” in government is the oldest lie in the book, spoken by politicians who know that pork will never be cut as long as the pig holds the knife.
Hell, I am not looking for a line item budget, or even a listing of government agencies…Can they even tell us which Cabinet departments will get cut? Will the Department of Defense budget go up or down? The Department of Interior, up or down? and so on. And then lets compare that budget against expected tax receipts. If there is a deficit, when do the Republicans expect to eliminate it?
This is why regular Americans are mocking the GOP- bold brave talk about fiscal responsibility, without the guts or courage to honestly tell us what they plan to cut or who they want to tax.
#10 Will – What kind of revolution? Just wondering if I should write you off as a nut
Jack
Steve Koss: Manufacturing will return with lower taxes – particularly corporate taxes, and low energy prices. Tort reform and right-to-work legislation would help too. The U.S. is just too expensive right now.
What plan? Where are the numbers? Saying “Oh we have a plan. And we’re going to show it to you next week” is not the same of showing charts and numbers to the public.
No wait. I know what the plan is. Tax cuts. Including more for the wealthy. Grrrreeeaattt. Meanwhile the folks without jobs (incomes) won’t get diddly.
I think it’s about time you people face it. the Republican Party is run by a bunch of dumbasses.
That’s right Pat J. #14… if you don’t have a job you don’t get “diddly.”
Simple work and you get paid. You don’t work you get “diddly”
Finally a plan that is focusing on Obama, the most polarizing figure in the history of the world, and his extreme incompetence. He is THE TOXIC-ASSET-IN-CHIEF.
To: #7 Jack and #11 Chip and #14 Pat J:
Re: “I had assumed those figures would have been included as an obvious “here is where we are different” bottom line.”
“Broad platitudes, and rosy sounding goals.”
“What plan? Where are the numbers?”
Read from the article, first paragraph, second page: “The COMPLETE alternative budget itself will be unveiled next week by Rep.Paul Ryan.”
Translation: this initial “unveiling” is a “broad” overview (not to be confused with “broad” platitudes or “broad” brush strokes); the minute details, which will include “charts and numbers” will be presented next week. This “broad” overview was presented this week as a counter to Obama’s accusation that the Republicans aren’t doing anything.
Sincerely,
A Dumbass
P.S. Right now, the Reps are not the party of “no” – they are the party of “We weren’t invited to the closed door late night dems only meeting.” How can they say “no” when they haven’t been asked the question?
#15 Elvis I think you know what he meant. Way to have a real view on the actual article or other meat all around this issue. Way to nitpick on choice of wording. That will get the party far.
Or maybe you honestly don’t get what he meant…maybe you should ask for that clarification?
Jack
What happened to drill, baby, drill? We are sitting on oceans of oil but have been browbeaten into developing alternative energies. While we should look at anything that makes economic sense to lessen our dependence on arab oil, we should drill everywhere…including the lawn of the White House.
Angry White Dude
“No wait. I know what the plan is. Tax cuts. Including more for the wealthy. Grrrreeeaattt. Meanwhile the folks without jobs (incomes) won’t get diddly.
I think it’s about time you people face it. the Republican Party is run by a bunch of dumbasses.”
Pat J, where did you think new jobs will come from? When you tax people and corporations who are profitable they have less money to invest in new jobs, etc. I guess you thought that in Obamaland that you just drop a bucket into the hopey-changey well and you can pull out jobs supplied with free retirement and health plans.
“Another official said: “We need to hold something up and say, ‘Here are our charts. Here are our graphs. It’s real.’””
I have to make fun of this quote. It’s just too much like Tom Green in the movie “Freddie Got Fingered” when he’s pretending he’s a stock broker to impress his girlfriend. He pulls out these empty pie charts and bar graphs, “See I made these on my computer.”
#17 Moogie – Did I not say (several times) that I was going to need more definition? Did I not say that I thought they were going to provide numbers in my response to Mike Shuster? Nice attempt to mis-quote me. Go back and re-read. I provided my response to the info in THIS article…that the author didn’t give specifics lead to my not responding with specifics. Were you just over-reacting, or just not reading? Or maybe reading with a bias?
And if you wanted to be intellectually honest, you’d admit that the republicans had their fair share of closed door meetings without the dems when they were in power. Personally I hate the rules that allow that, but it would seem you only want to blame the dems for the same behavior the republicans exhibited as well. Which, if you want to know, is what is wrong with the fringes (on both sides) in this country…no one wants to be honest about who does what to whom. It’s about us vs. them and no honest review of what happened.
In fact, that was the point of my post. I need the actual plan, but I have doubts that the republicans will live up to their supposed word. And, I feel they are still not living up to what they did in the past (i.e. the first 4 years of the Bush administration when they did have control of Congress).
Please re-read my posts and let me know your actual opinions of what I said. I’m willing to be fair about my own words, but you attributed things to me which I clearly didn’t say in your last post.
Jack
#20 Blackadder – Fair enough, but relate that to my post #7, 3rd item. I’d like to hear where there is tangible evidence in the current economy that tax cuts on the wealthy (i.e. job creators) will actually yield jobs.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy once it starts (creating jobs will make more ppl create jobs) but it hasn’t happened even with the massive (Bush) spendulus. How do we incentivise the wealthy to create jobs when the first few hundred billion didn’t? I think it will work at some point, but for now, giving them more money has turned into them having more money so they feel safer. It hasn’t turned into more jobs right now, this time around. Is the answer that we just keep giving them more money until they are so flush with cash that they are willing to finally let some of it out of the purse?
That kind of sounds like the Obama plan, which I’m not a fan of, but the prior influx of cash (by Bush) didn’t do it. So is the plan to give them more, or change how we are doing it?
I’m seriously not trying to sound catty, I just don’t know how to make them actually spend the money we keep giving them.
Jack
Dear Jack,
Your six points have no detailed answers IN THIS ARTICLE. What I was trying to say is that you and a few others said you wanted details, but the point of this article was to show a broad overview – the details will follow. So we are saying the same thing, yes?
As for the closed door politics: you’re right. I’m beginning to believe they’re all crooks. However, my basic belief in small government, limited entitlement programs, free enterprise and liberty in general are more represented by the republicans than the democrats, whose party, I believe, is being held hostage by a definite “fringe” of leftist-liberalism. You are right: the reps. had their chance and they frittered it away by rolling over and conducting themselves like dems.
My beef with the current closed door deliberations is that this administration declared, all through the campaign, to be bi-partisan, to reach across the isle. Have they actually done this yet? Obama accuses the reps. of saying “no” to everything he proposes, but if he isn’t going to invite them in on the process, what else can he expect?
Did I read your answer with bias? Yes, I did, just as you read this article with bias. If we’re going to be fair and honest, then let’s at least start with that. One pundit, I think Dennis Prager, says “clarity over agreement.” That’s as good a starting point as any, don’t you think?
Jack: “That kind of sounds like the Obama plan, which I’m not a fan of, but the prior influx of cash (by Bush) didn’t do it. So is the plan to give them more, or change how we are doing it?
I’m seriously not trying to sound catty, I just don’t know how to make them actually spend the money we keep giving them.”
In this, we are in agreement, I think. The bail-outs aren’t producing jobs, and the fact that the banks can’t even explain how they’re using the money raises questions and suspicions.
It had an accident with tax-n-switch -er- cap-n-tax -er- bait-n-tax -er- Prince Abdullah bin Bad…
About lower taxes. Stamped on my jockey shorts are the words “shrink government; live free”. But George Bush stamped “cut taxes; increase spending” on his underwear (according to the Whitehouse laundry). Right now, manic spending and a crushing debt load are robbing the US of the freedom to be American. When that happens, the rest of the world suffers. My northern eyes see only one way to get out this mess — cut spending and increase personal taxes; but reduce corporate and small business taxes.
#25 Moogie – Yay, we agree. Getting to the fundamentals is how we get out of this. I’m not convinced throwing money around is a good idea, and I’m very concerned about spending money on “green” things is a bit scary. I agree that “IF” it is time to spend money, you might as well do it on the things we all know we need to do for the infrastructure, but I’m not convinced in this case that just going green is the right way to get the money where it needs to be.
#24 Moogie – Yes, I was saying that I want details before I slam the hammer down, but I was prognosticating that the Republicans would miss the mark. I might be clearly wrong, time will tell. This was not me saying it sucks, just saying why I expect it too (sadly). My issue was you painting me with the same brush you painted the others with, who you implied wanted details from a plan that explicitly said would have none. I was thrilled to have this chance to jump in before they gave details to say how they would fail. And I believe I am right. They won’t have details, and they won’t have any comparable numbers, and even the items they say they will accomplish will be left lacking. But, I clearly said I would wait until they laid their plan out before I trash it (I just know it will suck, so I am laying the foundation…if they refute my points that I made, I’ll have to eat it indeed!!!).
As to the closed door deliberations. Both parties are guilty. Agreed. Obama DID say he wouldn’t do that, and to the extent he can control it, he broke his word. No arguement there. However, when Bush came to office, his first few months were also decidedly aimed at overturning what they didn’t like about the Clinton era. This is no different. My hope is that once this period of bloodletting and further reversals is over, that he WILL be the guy he promised to be. Jury still out, but Bush killed the Clinton stuff, so Obama will kill the Bush stuff. That is social “policy”. I hope Obama does get back to his promises once the obligatory “fix what the last guy did” stuff gets over with.
As to bias, no, I’m one of the few people that I can safely say is not biased. Yes, I have points/beliefs on EVERY issue, but I am not biased in terms of party. If OUR parties continue to give us one or the other, then they are forcing me to make a choice. I continue to say that the FISCAL conservatives from both parties need to join together. We can disagree on social issues, but on fiscal issues we should be able to agree. My wish is that the fiscal conservatives join together and solve this thing. The social issues are important, but a totally different subject. I’d be glad to disagree about Abortion, yet agree about taxation…why can’t we solve the taxation issue that we all agree on, and then later continue the abortion discussion? Why do we have to keep us Blue Dogs out of the fiscal discussion because “conservatives” can’t make the distinction?
If you keep fiscal separate from social, you’ll have much more support. That you hold social issues over my head to get me to try to support your fiscal causes hurts you. My social views (i.e. people vs. money) are always going to overpower my fiscal views. Conservatives agree. So lets keep them separate. If we can do that, we can at least solve one problem (a huge one right now) and that is at least some progress.
Thanks,
Jack
Hi Jack,
I will try to answer your question. I definitely agree with your criticism of GIVING banks money. In fact, I think if you look into it you will see that Bush was reluctant too but eventually was convinced it was necessary.
One might consider bailouts (to big companies) and tax cuts (to big companies) as being equivalent, but there is an important difference. When you increase tax rates “on the rich” in actual fact you are not necessarily targeting the rich, you are specifically targeting the people who are earning the most profits (which isn’t exactly the same thing). So the very people who are being efficient, successful, generating wealth are the ones who we punish when we increase tax rates. My point is that I would rather invest in and reward these individuals and companies who are profitable realizing that their growth will create more wealth and more jobs than have an inefficient and politically motivated government take that money to try to do the same (or so that they can distribute that money to failing companies partially owned by the government).
I do agree with you about the bailouts though, particularly to banks and insurance companies. It’s a tough call when the economy is falling apart, but given hindsight I agree that all that bailout money was a waste because it basically went towards paying their liabilities for them, not to improve liquidity.
Westerncanadian #27: “My northern eyes see only one way to get out this mess — cut spending and increase personal taxes; but reduce corporate and small business taxes.”
I agree.
Jack,
You are absolutely right: the Republican proposal shall surely fail. Actually, it will never be implemented, therefore we can pronounce it dead before the gate opens. However, this is exactly what they themselves have said – that they created it to show that they aren’t just sitting around, but they don’t have any expectations of it being considered by the administration.
More details than those provided in this article are available at:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final
(Jennifer Rubin’s link at the beginning of the article). I haven’t had a chance to do any comprehensive reading on it yet.
Throwing money at causes is usually not very succesful. Right now, the focus needs to be on stopping the bleeding, not on sticking a band-aid on a gaping wound while trying to conduct a tonsillectomy and face-lift on another part of the body at the same time. That band-aid won’t stop the bleeding, so you’re forced to keep sticking more and more band-aids on it.
Nice analogy, eh?
A budget without numbers. Ol’ Fake ‘n Bake Bronzer Boehner really outdid himself this time!
Hey can we get this one on i-tunes? I love it….
Listen to it here:
http://www.redcounty.com/american-tea-party-song
#29 Blackadder – On many points, I agree. My concern is that bailing out the banks, or bailing out the investors results in the same thing…limiting someone’s losses. They may appreciate it, but they (if smart) will not just leap back into investing.
To me it’s about finding the group(s) that will trigger the fix to the economy and giving them money. Essentially, to me, that is giving money to the non-rich person/family. They will spend it (solving the problem of those who hold on to the stimulus) and it will in and of itself, stimulate the “right” businesses. This isn’t about making banks or insurance companies whole, it’s about making the grocery stores whole (if you catch where I am going…where the common “man” spends their money). Stimulate the commodoties and that is the surest way to fix things. Don’t give it to banks or the rich who MIGHT give it to the common man, give it to the man, and let the man decide what in our capitalist system is worth buying (I don’t mean to imply a negative on capitalist).
I’m sure my comments will be decried by some as socialist, but all I’m saying is that the tax cuts at the lower end will revitalize the core of our economy, and that will work it’s way back up. To continue to fund trickle down (which didn’t work before in this kind of economy) is just asking for the wealthy to have more options. If capitalism is good, then give the money to the people and let them spend it where they will, and the companies that deserve it, who have earned it, will get it. Then we don’t have to worry about giving money to companies that have lost the public trust, have not embraced competition, or who have squandered their position.
It’s not that I want to be socialist, but I want to reward the people (since we are spending THEIR tax money) who will in turn spend it on the most worthy companies. If your company didn’t get anything, maybe you (as a company) should think about that…
That’s where I am going.
Jack
“If it turns out that voters don’t like a $3.6 trillion budget, a massive hike in the debt, and higher taxes, Republicans will be there, waiting to offer themselves as a brake against Obama’s ultra-liberal agenda.”
Jennifer… you do realize that you have absolutely NO clue how big the republican budget is? Mostly because they didn’t offer a budget at all, just a bunch of platitudes. I mean… your summary IS LITERALLY THE PLAN.
Nice to know you have that rubber stamp ready though.
I’m a conservative. I already hate this plan. I just wish the Pubs could learn to say ‘no’ to more spending. For God’s sake, just fix the economy. Leave healthcare out of it! Leave energy out of it. Stop offering bread and circuses. I don’t CARE if people are concerned about healthcare. It’s simply not the government’s job to provide it. It’s also not the government’s damned money.
Borrowing money and giving it to corporations or individuals is not the answer either. They both just sit on the money, or pay down the bills. Besides, it’s not their damned money! How hard is that to understand? It’s not their damned money! Borrowing is unconstitutional, anyway. Strictly verboten!
Cancel the CRA. Restore the FHA lending requirements. Restore the gutted provisions of Glass-Steagall.
Prosecute the guys who cooked the books for so long making these companies look viable. Clawback the bonuses paid for inflated numbers. It’s fraud, and is prosecutable by R&CO (RICO). Go after the Congressmen who took the bribes (campaign contributions) and were derelict in their responsibility to the people, claiming all was well.
Force the bailed out companies into bankruptcy. We own 80% of AIG. Close the damned doors on it, period. Bankruptcy will void obligations and stop the hemorrhaging of money. Same for Citi and others. Get the money back. No more bailouts of anyone, especially the MI automakers. Force them into bankruptcy court, too, so they can void the union contracts, especially the massive legacy responsibilities (aka, the can kicked down the road).
Reduce the government. Get rid of the NEA. Likewise the Dept of Education & Dept of Energy, too. Cut the EPA down to just anti-pollution. Cut back HHS by getting rid of HUD, and other deadweight. Merge some of the fed police forces. Combine the DEA and ATF, for example. CIA and NSA, too. Combine the border patrol, port security, and coast guard, maybe. There is just too much overlap of responsibilities, with its corresponding massive supporting bureaucracy.
Begin the end of SS/Medicare. Allow people to opt out. This would allow them to keep the employee deduction, but the employer portion would have to be paid. This will reduce revenues, but long-term obligations will decrease dramatically. It’ll also put more money into the hands of consumers.
Fix the economy and balance the budget. These two things go hand in hand. The massive borrowing is scarinf the bejeesus out of everyone. Do these things, then declare that they’ll quit monkeying with it for a year to see how it plays out. Businesses can then begin to plan and commit themselves. The economy will turn right around.
(end of rant)
A budget without numbers is meaningless, this thing looks like something somebody drew up on a napkin at lunch.
The full plan with numbers is supposed to be out on April 1st.
Something about that date seems appropriate.
Angry White Dude: You, your wallet, your 401k, and your bank account will all be drilled deep and hard.
This charade at an attempted response to the $3.6 Trillion dollar Democrat Party Obama Administration budget proposal is exactly why we need to sweep the current Republican Congressional leadership out and get some people who know how to play … TO WIN!
This display tells me they are still flat-footed and kind’a agree with some of that spending part the Democrat leadership proposes.
Isn’t this exactly why we “Republicans” are looking more and more like Democrat-lite as opposed to the Constitutionalists we are supposed to be?
These guys do not look like winners when they come out without specifics, their faces gray, and without a winning, fighting spirit.
In a word, PATHETIC!
You know, it isn’t Left Vs Right … Democrat Vs Republican anymore! – http://tinyurl.com/d3vsml
If I produced this report at any of my budget meetings I’d be unemployed. It’s must have been produced by a Pharmaceutical PR firm cause it says it will cure your ailment, but it lacks any freaking details. All it needs are the health disclaimers.
This is all Image over Content (Again). Haven’t we had enough of this. Stop trying to make grand standing political points and start engaging in the process to fix things. I am a TR progressive and I think both Dems and Repubs need to engage since they actually balance each others excesses. Kind of like two parts of a personality. Stop hating each other and start cooperating. Time to pick up for the good of the team – Americans.
Thanks Moogie for pointing out that details of the plan will be forthcoming. I’ve read some articles mocking the plan because it lacked the all important numbers. We are lucky to have a poster in here who can read.
I think we all accept that this R plan is a non starter. Obama will do what he wants. He won. The important thing is to be on record (and loudly) that there was an alternative.
I am no financial whizz, but it doesn’t seem logical to be spending money on new programs when we have to borrow money from the Communist Chinese to keep the lights on in our house. It’s down right humiliating if you ask me.
I know the Left likes to blame Bush for this but most of this crisis is due to the Dems forcing banks to provide mortgages to dead beats.
I saw another article on PJ’s about how the USA could not get into the EU (as if we would want to) because our finances are in such a mess. Considering countries like Romania and Bulgaria just got into the EU, that shows you how F’d up the USA is these days.
We are a third world country now, ruled by a Chavez clone.
#36 – RIGHT ON!!!! KEEP IT SIMPLE NOW, THE OTHER STUFF CAN BE DEBATED WHEN WE ARE NOT IN CRISIS MODE.
2. wanker the brainogynist: . . . “Republicans are not going to win by being “Fascism Lite”… sure it’s less filling, but it doesn’t satisfy.”
Right you are, there’s nothing lite about Republican fascism. You guys go for the real thing in all 14 judges categories:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
Congratulations, Comrade Wanker, you’ve done well. Now go back to your basement and await further instructions from the Lair of Cheney.
You know, God love the Republicans, they have truly learned how to have at least some cohones as the minority. Their main problem now is that they demonstrated how incompetent they are as the majority. You have to hand it the Democrats in this regard. They know how to get down in the trenches and win the brutal knife fights. They are ruthless liars, but they know how to get their agenda moved forward. The Republican’s really need to look at the Democrats for style points.
Take the gloves off? Republican’s don’t have gloves on to start with. They’ve never come to the fight. Start putting bombs (figurative, not literal, Mr. FBI newsgroup-reader) in their house before they put them in ours.
#43, you have no idea what fascism is do you.
1 Nationalism has nothing to do with fascism, but it is hated by the New World Order afficianados. Looking at what the United Nations is American nationalism looks brilliant!
2 Human rights are always trashed by so called liberals taking away rights of some to pay for support to others. If you are talking about terrorists remember that ununiformed combatants are subject to execution. This is international law.
3 Well Democrats have been doing that for decades.
4 I don’t see a general giving orders to congress or the president myself. You must be talking about support of the troops. That must gal you to no end.
5 Yes, jobs and ideas are only valid with government perferences. Oh, Democrats again.
6 Have you watched or listened to TV, newspapers or movies in the last decades?
7 Yes, protecting Americans from threats is a crime…according to Democrats.
8 People bring all their experiences or beliefs with them even in the government. Athiests are not a protected class given rights to govern by themselves and excluding everyone who has a faith different from them. We have freedom OF religion. Not freedom to Suppress religion.
9 I does fly in the face of Maxism, doesn’t it.
10 If labor can’t unionize with democratic secret voting then maybe the workers don’t want it. It’s a bitch when you can’t intimidate people into being union.
11 Just disdain for suedo intellectuals who hate all that America was and is, and artists who don’t produce on their own but must be government subsidized.
12 Personal responsibility. It’s a bitch isn’t it.
13 Obama’s cabinet. Enough said.
14 Acorn (that was just too easy)
Expect the republicans to go quietly into the night…….
45 Michael . . . I knew that list would generate a blistering example of right wing victimhood. Thanks for obliging. Now, if you’re really thoughtful, you’ll post Republican examples of all 14. It’s even easier! But why would you want to undertake such an honest and self-critical exercise? Not when you have Sarah Palin to protect.
Hm, I was seeing a blistering example of left wing victimhood. It is easier to pick out problems with others as you so eleqently demonstrated.
Dump the corporate tax altogether, cut capgains tax in half, streamline business formation law, cut redtape for new nuclear plants, and change tax law on individual taxation to tax consumption not income.
It takes guts. I hope they have it. They need to attend a Cuda seminar on courage.
The plan is a joke. Not a single dollar amount in the entire thing. It’s posturing pure and simple.
48 Michael . . . against my better judgment I’ll accommodate your intellectual laziness.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism (flag pins)
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights (Darfur)
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause (the media)
4. Supremacy of the Military (duh)
5. Rampant Sexism (feminazis)
6. Controlled Mass Media (Judith Miller, anything owned by Murdoch)
7. Obsession with National Security (bombs in baby strollers on the subways!)
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined (Dobson, Robertson, Falwell . . . Haggart)
9. Corporate Power is Protected (Enron)
10. Labor Power is Suppressed (auto workers concessions)
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts (NPR, Chomsky, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart)
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment (Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, black site prisons)
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption (KBR, Halliburton, the Texas Mafia)
14. Fraudulent Elections (Florida in 200 and Ohio in 2004)
There, that took all of 45 seconds. Next time don’t pull up your pants until you wipe your ass.
45. Michael, you saved me a whole lot of typing and did it so much more eloquently than I would have
But let me add this:
Fascism, simply put, IS: The economic System in which Industry is Held Privately, but controlled Publically (by government). Most often this control is through Taxation and Regulation, but can also be through the Criminal Code.
That, in a nutshell, describes the Democrat Agenda since the time of Woodrow Wilson…
51. one of my own:
48 Michael . . . against my better judgment I’ll accommodate your intellectual laziness.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism (flag pins)
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights (Darfur)
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause (the media)
4. Supremacy of the Military (duh)
5. Rampant Sexism (feminazis)
6. Controlled Mass Media (Judith Miller, anything owned by Murdoch)
7. Obsession with National Security (bombs in baby strollers on the subways!)
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined (Dobson, Robertson, Falwell . . . Haggart)
9. Corporate Power is Protected (Enron)
10. Labor Power is Suppressed (auto workers concessions)
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts (NPR, Chomsky, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart)
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment (Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, black site prisons)
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption (KBR, Halliburton, the Texas Mafia)
14. Fraudulent Elections (Florida in 200 and Ohio in 2004)
There, that took all of 45 seconds. Next time don’t pull up your pants until you wipe your ass.
Mar 27, 2009 – 12:19 pm
———————–
Must be sad to spend every waking moment drowning in hateful delirium. A good therapist may help you, but first you must admit that your anger management issues could be self-destructive and mentally unsustainable, leading you to cause unnecessary harm to either yourself, or to those around you that aren’t responsible for your manic tendencies! Please seek help before the damaged cell structure that you’ve allowed yourself to become is irreversible!
Jack #34: I’m not talking about bailing out banks or investors. I’m talking about tax cuts. Bailouts are completely different than tax cuts for the reasons that I explained.
If you lower taxes than companies that make profits will retain more of those profits. Chances are that these profitable companies will manage to generate more wealth (and create more jobs) with those retained earnings than if the government retained that money. That’s because firstly, companies that are making money have proven that they are capable of making money while governments are notorious for being inefficient and they are not in the business of generating wealth. Companies that do not make profits either due to poor performance or excessive risk taking are left to fend for themselves. I think we both agree that this would be better for the country. That’s just the way that a free market works, and it is harmful to interfere with the normal consequences of success and failure. So no more bailouts, and that includes bailing out individuals living beyond their means.
I think Westercanadian has a good suggestion @ #27 that really is a way to do income redistribution without doing the stupid thing of increasing taxes on profitable businesses while claiming you’re trying to create jobs. However, to a degree taxing personal income can have a similar impact anyway. There is some logic though behind this idea that if you lower business taxes and raise personal income taxes this would give ‘the rich’ incentive to invest their money in their business (which would tend to stimulate growth and create jobs) rather than ‘hold onto it’ as you mentioned.
@53
You clowns don’t get it do you? This country was an eyelash away from fascism right up until January 20 of this year. Very close.
Obama is not perfect. But I have faith he’s going to help correct many of the mistakes and missteps of the CheneyBush administration. And it’s certainly not going to happen overnight. He’s going to need our help. That means you too!
Only a right wing conservative drone could mistake clarity for delirium. No anger on this end. Just a bottomless bucket of amazement at how Republicans rationalize their failings. The hardest thing for a Republican do it is say, “I was wrong.” i haven’t heard it yet, on any topic. it’s one of your more consistent and disappointing character flaws.
“Manic tendencies?” We’re not the ones buying up all the guns and ammo in preparation for the imaginary revolution that you panty waists have no guts to start never mind finish.
52 wanker the philatelist . . . “Fascism, simply put, IS: The economic System in which Industry is Held Privately, but controlled Publically (by government). Most often this control is through Taxation and Regulation, but can also be through the Criminal Code.”
Not even close. Try this one: “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”
Add in the most secretive and covert assumption of power in presidential history and you have the last eight years. Why don’t you ask Dick Cheney where those 12 million e-mails went during the Valerie Place affair? Still waiting on those to surface. But you don’t care about that. You’d rather indulge your fantasies about birth certificates and flag pins and the shortage of +P rounds.
You people here, and I use the term as derisively as can be taken) are some seriously confused and mixed-up people. At best I can chalk it up to ignorance. At worst, it’s the ever-blackening eye given to otherwise nice people by a power-mad cabal of neo-conservative hacks trying to avenge getting laughed in the shower after high school gyn class.
Really, it’s time to stop getting lead around the a nose hook put there by the likes of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Cheney, Rice and Bush. I can’t think of a less competent or trustworthy bunch of knuckleheads in my adult lifetime.
Got it together. First budget I’ve ever seen with no numbers. What else could we expect from the Republicans who intentionally bankrupted this country in their quest for a “global economy”. What a bunch of losers.
#57 one of my own on fascism:
That was one of the most ridiculous comments that I’ve ever seen from you.
“a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”
That definition is supposed to resemble Bush’s presidency? The man lowered taxes and deregulated industry while at war. And while the grossest of propaganda was aimed against him by his political enemies (like Michael Moore and other left wing media) he almost never lowered the dignity of the presidency to engage them let alone forcibly attempt to silence them.
Meanwhile in the first two months of Obama’s presidency we see:
- The White House vs Limbaugh (a private citizen) AND the argument that “I want Obama to fail” = “I want America to fail”
- We have greater nationalization of private enterprise AND overall acceptance that it is legitimate for government to seize private property (through taxation) on the declared basis of redistribution at the government’s discretion.
- We have the fairness doctrine (government regulation of the press)
- We have gun control initiatives.
- We have the White House meddling with the census.
- Others?
I think we are splitting hairs when trying to decide whether this is a step in the direction of fascism or communism. They are vitually the same, except in their ideals of social justice. What difference does it make? Both are attempts by a government to seize ultimate power over citizens. Whoever is in power will carry out their will whether it is based on fascist or communist ideology.
It is interesting enough to consider some of these policies (Democrat or Republican) against definitions of fascism or communism. It’s also a great American quality that citizens protect their constitution against their government with vigor but at some point when we say call Bush or Obama fascists and communists we’re engaging in mindless name-calling. At least present an intelligent argument to support such claims.
#54 Blackadder – I agree that the money needs to get to the companies, however I would prefer to give it to the people first. Sure, some don’t deserve it (a minority of the whole), but as I am employed by a company that just laid off 8,000 people, there are plenty of hard-working people out there who could use it. They will spend it, and the companies will get it anyway, and it will lower their standing inventories (which is a problem/cost for many companies right now) and those who have earned our money will get it. Rather than the government deciding which companies get it and hoping they will do something good with it.
If someone should get the money, it should be the taxpayers. It will get to the rich/companies in due time. Let the taxpayers spend their own money first.
Jack.
59. Mike Blackadder . . . let me take just one of your assertions to illustrate your hysterical victimhood: “- We have the fairness doctrine (government regulation of the press)”
We do? When did that pass? Who voted for and against it? How has it affected the media?
You and yours would rather wail about what may happen rather than deal with what has happened – the wholesale pillaging of our economy and our reputation around the world. Of course, your answer is to deny rather than to accept any responsibility . . . “No, no, no, that wasn’t us in power. It’s all Barney Frank’s fault. Yeah, Barney Frank. (Pssst. By the way,did you know he’s gay!”) That’s the Republican way – “Our liberty is at stake!” – and so you start waving guns and whining about our founding fathers. You are the face of the patriot industry ginned up by idiots like Limbaugh and Hannity and Levin who have nothing whatsoever to offer as solutions. They exist purely to market themselves to anachronisms like you, who lap up their red, white and blue platitudes while they buy mansions and jets with your money. As long as Hannity says, “You’re a great American” you’re happy to pay for his kids’ college education. And he nows it. But like every other sucker out there, you don’t know it.
Finally, in reference to yet another blindly obedient assertion buried in your post . . . allow me to quote your fearless departed leader W, “I gotta keep catapulting the propaganda. That’s my job.” Well, W is gone now. I guess you’ll just have to stick your nose up Rush’s butt to sniff out the truth from now on, eh?
Power to the “real” Americans – the fat, stupid and lazy Americans who’d rather whine than work to bring about a better country. F the lot of ya.
#59 Blackadder – As to the resemblances to the Bush presidency, the most obvious of which are ridiculous use of signing statements, assigning justices while congress is recessed to avoid their (constitutional) input, millions of deleted emails, use of RNC emails for official White House business, firing lawyers who didn’t follow party lines, falsifying budget requests by not including war costs and kicking off emergency supplementals as soon as the budgets were approved, wire-tapping U.S. citizens without warrants, selling out the Brits during an intelligence operation prior to the ’06 election to curry votes here at home, and a general complete lack of transparency which will undoubtedly reveal more “dictator-like” behavior over time.
And I’m sure if challenged, other folks can add their own list without too much trouble.
Jack
one of your own: here it goes- I was wrong. I thought America was smart enough to see through someone as empty and dangerous as Barack Obama, but America elected him anyway. I didn’t think Americans were that stupid.
#63 Mysth buster – Clever. Calling someone stupid while not making anything even approximating a point. Well played, sir…well played.
Jack
Words-Words- Words
See the Meat below
This financial mess was brought on by the U.S. Stock Market creation of unregulated derivatives and credit default swaps.
A “derivative” is an option on an asset. It has no hard value and the value is time dependent. The value can change from minute to minute.
Sub prime mortgages paid more interest than “prime” mortgages pay.
Credit Default Swaps were created to protect those who invested in the shaky
Sub Primes which were rated A.A.A. instead of J.J.J. for junk.
The Credit Default Swaps were sold By AIG as insurance policies to the sub prime investors to protect their arss however, the Swaps were not backed up with adequate capitol as required in the regulated insurance industry.
These Swaps might have only $5.00 of capital for every $100.00 dollars of protection issued.
These swaps and derivatives were not regulated, Thanks to Phil Gram who inserted a requirement in The U.S. budget bill Dec. 2000 requiring that derivatives not be regulated.
So the market and banks now have on their books (latest estimate) a toxic debt of $30 trillion dollars. Our GNP is only about 14 Trillion.
What the hell is a Trillion?
It is $10,000 per tax filer, assuming there are one hundred million people who file income tax in the U.S.
Our budget for this year is 3.6 trillion. This folks is a tax bill of $36,000 per tax filer.
In conclusion: The Wise Guys on Wall Street who created the unregulated derivatives and swaps are responsible for the market crash, the loss of your jobs and the vaporization of your college and pension funds.
OK: consider my solution:
Assume that there is $30 trillion of toxic assets in the market worth only two to three Trillion dollars, how then will our measly one trillion dollar gift help the matter? It won’t.
We need the rest of the world to throw another, say $25 Trillion into the pot.
Now the market is restored and you get your pension and college savings back: and the Wise Guys become cell mates.
#65 Griptite – Bear in mind we only need to worry about the toxic assets that are tied to loans that fail (i.e. the ones where the borrower isn’t able to keep up with the payments). That part is the scare…mis-judge the failure rate and it will at least appear like a total failure. The trick is to pay just enough to cover those that fail and not a penny more, which might very well look like regular disbursements because we are trying to not over pay (nor should we).
Not trying to say bailouts are good, just explaining what the powers that be are currently thinking (and why there is speculation that another trillion dollars will likely be needed…because we have so far only covered the ones that did fail, and a portion of what we expect to fail). Their hope is that some of those future expected defaults won’t happen and that the economy will recover before they feel the need to make another payment (or at least a smaller one).
The G20 meeting will be interesting, since the U.S. is one of the few countries that have tried to solve the problem in this manner, and the other countries don’t want to have to cough up the kind of dough the U.S. has (and rightly so).
Jack
Since the toxic assets are insurance if the loans fail, simply buy the bad loans. It’s cheaper, and those CDS’s can never pay off.
#61 one of my own:
No, I still don’t see any argument that would suggest Bush is a fascist, even though you unabashedly call him one. And when I point out how Obama’s policies are clearly more like your definition of fascism your only retort is to argue the fairness doctrine is not yet law, but you ignore all the other points. So I still don’t see how it is that Obama’s changes are not clearly a step towards fascism based on your own definition.
And no the fairness doctrine is not yet law, but as we often hear from Democrats at this site, “it’s only been a couple of months, you can’t expect him to have undone all of Bush’s policies”. Prominent democrats have stated publicly over the past three months that they think the fairness doctrine needs to be reinstated. And the White House’s campaign to try and discredit Limbaugh rather than face criticism only reinforces a rational expectation that they mean what they say about the fairness doctrine.
So you may as well carry on with your name-calling because you’re obviously not capable of winning this argument.
#62: Jack, even if Bush was the malicious liar that you assume him to be, that doesn’t make him a fascist.
I think the only point of debate is the phone tapping that you mention (insofar as suggesting Bush has fascist policies). I’m not personally a big fan of this policy. I’d rather suffer the cost of freedom and keep the government out of our private life. However, you have to admit that you might consider the government to be negligent if certain Americans were communicating with known terrorists and the government knowingly ignored those calls because they want to protect their right to a private conversation.
#67 Marc Malone – It isn’t that simple. Far more complicated.
Jack
#69 Blackadder – If there is an American we know is communicating with terrorists then there are entirely legal remedies for that. Bush didn’t trifle with that pesky “legal” piece.
And I think looking at Bush as a fascist needs to be done with an eye to his indeference to the Constitution (overstepping his bounds and diminishing the role of the other branches of government, i.e. trying to dictate). He has a clear history of trying to usurp what is clearly Congressional authority (as judged by the Supreme Court over and over in our history), to the point where his own V.P. tried to assert he wasn’t part of the Executive Branch when it suited their needs.
Most of my points in that post spoke directly to his attempts to breach what was classically defined as the extent of Presidential authority (as most of his signing statements did). In my mind, a fascist President is one who dispenses with the rule of law, the will of the Congress, and oversteps the lines that were drawn by the Supreme Court. Many of those lines were as simple as the requirement of the President to report to Congress (specific reporting requriments put into quite a few specific bills), which has been upheld by the Court since the very first President, but which Bush decided to ignore claiming broad things like “national security” reasons.
Jack
One of my own, I would be more respectful of your posts if your demand that conservatives look for and concentrate on tneir(in your opinion)flaws if you did the same to your chosen group. You will not becaue you can no more see the failings on your side of the isle than a Marxist or a Klu Klux Clan member. I do see failings on my side but refuse to play to your tune when you will not be intelectually honest and only use it as further ammunition for your hate of virtually half the country’s population because they believe differently from you.
I can see why liberals believe what they believe. I think they are wrong but that’s fine. From your attack posts that I respond to (and I respond forcefully because of your tone) you would love to outlaw conservatives and end free speech. If that is not your intent then think about what you are saying.
At this point you only continue to polarize the political debate and confirm conservatives views. By the way thank you for that at least.
Oh, sorry. 72 is mine, I was at a different computer.
Jack, what law makes it illegal to talk to a known terrorist? Sure, if there was evidence that you planned an attack then that is a crime. Hypothetically speaking, you could have a relative or old friend who is a terrorist who you talk to on the phone. That’s not a crime. So if the government doesn’t create special powers to listen in on suspicious calls it would be illegal for them to do so. Or if they had to obtain a warrant in advance it would be too late.
Given some of Bush’s tactics that you describe I don’t blame you questioning his commitment to the constitution, but that’s because I know we disagree about the quality of his character. You probably see “national security” as a convenient excuse, but given circumstances this may be a legitimate reason, especially given the loose tongues of some elected officials.
72. Anonymous: . . .”One of my own, I would be more respectful of your posts if your demand that conservatives look for and concentrate on tneir(in your opinion)flaws if you did the same to your chosen group. You will not becaue you can no more see the failings on your side of the isle than a Marxist or a Klu Klux Clan member.”
You’re concerned that I don’t list equivalent failings of Democrats, are you? As if that’s the accepted approach on this board – for right wingers to offer all the failings of conservatives and Republicans before attacking Democrats. Funny, I don’t see much of that. Quite the opposite. Mostly what I see is what you offer – comparing me to a Marxist and a KKK member for not doing what none of you don’t do either.
That is the mark of a minor intellect, emotionally stunted and burdened by unrelenting refusal to admit when you’re wrong.
I suggest some human growth hormone.
68 mike backbladder . . . “And no the fairness doctrine is not yet law . . . ”
You dismiss that as if it’s irrelevant. But it goes to the very heart of your disingenuous blather. You definitively said, “We have the fairness doctrine (government regulation of the press)”
The fact is you’re willing to trowel out that BS and lots more like it when you know it’s patently false. Not sure if you realize it, but that’s called lying. It’s a character flaw. And it casts a shadow over everything else you say. We liberals call that a “credibility problem.”
And when you get called on it, you say, “Oh, yeah, well, sure, maybe not yet, but that doesn’t matter anyway because I said other things that were true so it’s not me who’s a lying dick, it’s you. And besides “prominent” Democrats have talked about it.
None of which has anything to with your original claim of fact. This doubletalk bullshit is what Rove does, and Hannity and Limbaugh and Levin and Coulter do. The problem for you is, there are enough of me out here who see through their crap (just like I see through yours) to throw Republicans out of office and take the country in an entirely new direction. We don’t expect it to be easy. And we’re in it for the long haul. So unless you and the right wing media messes you parrot can do a lot better, you’re gonna go down even harder in 2010.
All hail Rush.
36. Marc Malone:
You have some good points. Hope somebody will hear you.
The Republicans had control of Congress and the Presidency under Mr. Bush. However they acted as all politicians, even those with good intentions as I believe they had, and compromised. So the current mess is a result of compromising with the Democrats. However, the Democrats now disingenuously blame this all on the Republicans.
The Republicans should start by being truthful and accepting a part of the blame but also explaining that this mess was a bi-partisan mess.
They can then bring out expert economists to explain why their plan is better for the country.
In other words this should, finally, become a rational discussion rather than a mere political fight.
Ah yes, continued personal attacks. The difference here is that you come to a conservative board and launch your ad hominem attacks. It isn’t I who come to a liberal board and expect to be treated with kid gloves. (Although appearently liberal blogs do not allow disenting views as a rule. Odd that, don’t you think?)
At least quit spouting attacks and talking points and give detailed reasons that your views are correct and not just being a disruptive troll.
#74 Blackadder – You are right, I would be allowed to talk to a known terrorst who is my cousing. Because it’s not illegal and for the government to listen in without a warrant would be illegal. Can they start listening to pedophiles, killers, known J-walkers too? They might break the law too…The problem is we are a nation of laws, laws that can’t be ignored when inconvenient or really scary. Start giving up your freedoms and you’ll end up wondering how you got where you end up. I live in DC and I don’t particularly want to get blown up, but I’m not sure Executive sanctioned law breaking, invasion of privacy, and the ignorance of the Constitution is a price I’m willing to pay to keep breathing.
As to Bush’s character and national security. As Bush has apparently sanctioned leaking national security secrets (such as the British plane plot) to further their agenda or elections I can’t trust his judgement. It’s exactly the “at all costs” approach that his administration had that gets us down a scary path.
If I am a well-meaning politician I break the law to help the country, but then I need to get re-elected to keep helping the country, so I break the law to get elected, and then I can go back to breaking the law to help the country. Once you allow yourself to break the law, the acceptable situations for doing so will multiply. Slippery slope.
Jack
#78 Allen – Are you really trying to say that you won’t blame democrats for what goes wrong JUST because they have the Presidency and Congress right now? I’m forced to give you the benefit of the doubt because I don’t know you, but I would find that type of even-handedness isn’t very common on this board or in politics in general.
And I don’t blame the Republicans entirely, however things like “we knew the financial mess was coming in 2001 but the dems stopped us from fixing it in 2004 when they took over” is totally hollow. They couldn’t find time in 3 years to pass a single law on this financial mess they knew was coming? Hell, according to Hannity they knew this was coming since 1977 when Democrats foolishly threw away our long term solvency to let poor people have homes. Are you really trying to say that 27 years wasn’t enough time for the Republicans to fix that mess before the Dems took over again? This is the kind of argument that sounds like intellectual dishonesty, but we keep hearing it all the time.
I’m not in favor of much of what the Dems are doing, but lets not try to make the Right the sole bastion of honesty and American pride….m’kay?
Jack
#79 – Michael
I’m fairly sure he doesn’t expect to be treated with kid gloves, I think he hopes for a political conversation with some intelliget discourse behind it. I think that was his point. And yes, some liberals and democrats have the same style you were using, but I don’t think you are advocating a position that says two wrongs makes a right. I would think you would try to judge yourself by something other than the lowest common denominator.
And why do you come to a conservative board anyway? It has always confused me why people would come to a site where they agree with everything to talk politics? Is this a cheerleading site or a discussion site? I am specifically here because I like to talk through issues and not just to hear other people tell me how smart and right I am. Is that what you meant by being disruptive? That he was interfering with the group-think? But I guess I’m not looking for self-validation by posting here and maybe you are?
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but I’m not sure where you were going with that post.
Jack
79 Michael . . . It’s hard to admit a lie, isn’t it. I’m guessing that’s why you chose to ignore and instead whined about being attacked – more victimhood. My post (#76) was spot on and points out a HUGE problem for any party trying to claw its way back to relevance – lack of credibility.
And it’s particularly difficult for Republicans right now because of the culture of secrecy and deception they created under Bush. Together with their media minions they wove a tale of danger and blind duty that far too many of you believed. Now they’re gone but you remain, continuing to spout the baseless red, white and blue-isms that they offered in place of genuine courage and governance.
Your refusal to address the issue – bald-faced lying – is proof enough of the cowardice that lies just beneath the surface of incompetence. Instead you choose to lick your wounds and whimper, “Well, why do you come here anyway? Stirring up trouble. This is a CONSERVATIVE blog . . . nobody here likes you, you know.”
After 8 years of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Gonzalez and the rest of the neo-cabal I didn’t really need another dazzling example of arrested development, but thanks anyway.
Now . . . how ’bout a sody pop?
Still waiting on those numbers…
I mean seriously, how do you blindly support a budget that doesn’t tell you how much it’s spending and taking in? And from what I can tell right now, they don’t seem to be actually releasing any detailed budget anytime soon.
I am asking for you to explain your points not just spout them. That is why I wonder why you are here. My “tactics” are just a disbelief that you think the Democrats are any different? From my view they are just another step deeper in the mud.
And thanks for the continued personal attacks.
Michael,
You lied and you refuse to admit it. You have no credibility. You are in no position to demand forthrightness from anyone. As your wet dream Sean Hannity says, “If he lied about this, how can we trust him on anything else”
Must hurt to be judged so harshly by one of your heroes.
Again the personal attacks. You have run out of arguments so soon. Ah well, I had hoped for better.
87 Michael . . . you have one response . . . “personal attacks” . . . which you seem to think exonerates you from meeting the demands of truth, justice and the American way.
“Whyyyyy are you attacking meeeeeee like thissssss?”
You need to butch up, parlor boy. You lie, you deny, and then you whine. Really, that’s no way to go through life, unless you’re Paris Hilton. You’re not Paris Hilton are you?
Moving on.
The budget is out.
The good news is that the GOP isn’t spending 3.7 trillion dollars. The bad news is that they still manage to run a deficit that’s 300 million dollars larger than Obama’s in 2010.
Spend less yet still manage to borrow more? That’s the GOP for you.
John Boehner(R) lied when he said that every household would have to pay $3,100 per household to pay for the electricity. The cost is more like $31 per person and you would have to have 100 people living in your household to pay out what John says.(Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire). He is upping Bush’s Tax cuts for the wealthy by 10 point more than Bush did. You need incoming revenue to pay for outgoing expenses. You can’s put a 5 year freeze on spending. That happened once during, I believe, during Roosevelt’s years and we went into deeper depression. So how do the Republicans suggest we pay for our present expenses? Your Grandpa could lose his Medicare and Social Security and you would have no job to help support him. Maybe the Republicans just want to knock off everyone that needs help because it is apparent that John Boehner has money and has no concern for the common person or blue collar worker.
Boerner, Pence, Jindal, Palin, Cantor and Sanford. More proof the GOP is the party of dumbasses.
Yeah, 17 trillion in debt isn’t a big deal, but 20 trillion, that’s just insanity!!!!
Jack