• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP pledge - Have they lost their minds, or do they think we're all idiots?

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The GOP pledge effectively exempts 85% of the budget from cuts, leaving 15%, or $500 billion to be cut as the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan computes.

Former Reagan Adviser On GOP'S Pledge To America : NPR

Now, how the hell does the GOP think it can reduce the deficit and get us back into the black without touching that 85%? The deficit is over $1 trillion right now. If the GOP cut that entire 15% out, meaning no parks, no homeland defense, no corporate subsidies, no transfer payments to states for police, firefighters and education, no congress, no judicial branch, no executive branch, no non-military research grants as a short list, they still could not get even half way to cutting the deficit. And if they cut taxes, the reduction in revenue will cause the gap to grow even larger. Not to mention that cutting that much spending and layoff everyone from the President, the Chief Justice, Themselves to park rangers, that will cause a severe reduction in demand and spending further causing revenues to drop. And if they repeal Romneycare (let's be honest, the healthcare bill is little more then an old GOP policy), they have to further cut to make up the cost savings.

The numbers the GOP are playing with are beyond fantasy and moving well into the realm of delusionality caused by LSD overdose.

So have they lost their minds, or do they think we're all so incredibly stupid we'll buy this bat**** argument and give them the power to which they won't even try to use to enact their pledge for fear of massive voter retaliation?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The GOP pledge effectively exempts 85% of the budget from cuts, leaving 15%, or $500 billion to be cut as the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan computes.

Former Reagan Adviser On GOP'S Pledge To America : NPR

Now, how the hell does the GOP think it can reduce the deficit and get us back into the black without touching that 85%? The deficit is over $1 trillion right now. If the GOP cut that entire 15% out, meaning no parks, no homeland defense, no corporate subsidies, no transfer payments to states for police, firefighters and education, no congress, no judicial branch, no executive branch, no non-military research grants as a short list, they still could not get even half way to cutting the deficit. And if they cut taxes, the reduction in revenue will cause the gap to grow even larger. Not to mention that cutting that much spending and layoff everyone from the President, the Chief Justice, Themselves to park rangers, that will cause a severe reduction in demand and spending further causing revenues to drop. And if they repeal Romneycare (let's be honest, the healthcare bill is little more then an old GOP policy), they have to further cut to make up the cost savings.

The numbers the GOP are playing with are beyond fantasy and moving well into the realm of delusionality caused by LSD overdose.

So have they lost their minds, or do they think we're all so incredibly stupid we'll buy this bat**** argument and give them the power to which they won't even try to use to enact their pledge for fear of massive voter retaliation?
Well, Boehner said after the Republicans have the majority next year they will engage in conversation about thinking about maybe what to do regarding entitlements, so the new Congress should have the issue solved in the first session or two...

That's pretty concrete, right?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Well, Boehner said after the Republicans have the majority next year they will engage in conversation about thinking about maybe what to do regarding entitlements, so the new Congress should have the issue solved in the first session or two...

That's pretty concrete, right?
About as concrete as quicksand. And if he said that, then the Pledge is functionally dishonest as they do intend to cut things they did not talk about. Furthermore, I seriously doubt they will do it. Cutting medicare and Social Security next year when people are relying on it is pretty much suicide.

From a purely accounting/number perspective, this "pledge" is nothing more then theatrics.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
About as concrete as quicksand. And if he said that, then the Pledge is functionally dishonest as they do intend to cut things they did not talk about. Furthermore, I seriously doubt they will do it. Cutting medicare and Social Security next year when people are relying on it is pretty much suicide.

From a purely accounting/number perspective, this "pledge" is nothing more then theatrics.
Right. They won't even talk about entitlements, really. Not seriously, anyway.

Another thing, Boehner wouldn't even commit to ending earmarks on FNS. When directly asked, he just dodged it. Course, earmarks don't amount to enough to be meaningful, but I thought the Republicans and the Tea Party were against them...
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Right. They won't even talk about entitlements, really. Not seriously, anyway.
They won't. And it's questionable if they are really going to repeal the Healthcare bill. Imagine how many senior votes they'd lose when AARP informs everyone that they are now going to have to deal with the donut hole for a while until the GOP figures out what to do. Yeah, that will go over real well. The GOP refuses to touch the biggest three expenditures. Without cutting them, it is completely impossible to reduce the deficit.

Another thing, Boehner wouldn't even commit to ending earmarks on FNS. When directly asked, he just dodged it. Course, earmarks don't amount to enough to be meaningful, but I thought the Republicans and the Tea Party were against them...
Boehner is completely full of ****. He was there when the GOP went on its binge spending and government expansion. Did he do a damn thing to stop it? No. Same goes for Mitchell. The GOP leadership in Congress is just as corrupt and incompetent as the Democratic Congressional Leadership. They should put McCain as Senate Minority Leader now that he doesn't have to bend over to get votes for the Presidency and can go back to being a Real Conservative. McCain stood by while the rest of the GOP went to the pig trough. McCain wasn't one of the Republicans who shut the lights on their fiscal conservative colleagues who were complaining the GOP was being reckless.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,734
Reaction score
74,636
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
didn't you know that it is fiscally responsible to give tax cuts to billionaires at a time when we are running a deficit

CAUGHT: Stewart Shows GOP's 'New' Pledge Exactly The Same As The Old (VIDEO)
why do you claim its for billionaires? the vast majority of people who received tax cuts under Bush were not billionaires. Indeed, the vast majority of those Obama wants to pay more taxes are not billionaires.

Do you think you rally the class warfare jihadists more by using the term billionaire? are you being honest
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,460
Reaction score
32,207
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
why do you claim its for billionaires? the vast majority of people who received tax cuts under Bush were not billionaires. Indeed, the vast majority of those Obama wants to pay more taxes are not billionaires.

Do you think you rally the class warfare jihadists more by using the term billionaire? are you being honest
are you trying to tell us the tax cuts the republicans are proposing will not benefit the billionaires?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Mr. STOCKMAN: No, I don't think you can. And that's why I think, as I said, the plan's half right but also half baked. They're being disingenuous when they say right in the second or third page, I see here, that we will exempt seniors, that's all Social Security and Medicare, I presume, and federal retirement and so forth that will exempt veterans, will exempt all of defense, Homeland Security and you have to pay the interest on the debt.

Well, that happens to add up to 2.4 trillion or almost two-thirds of the budget. So if you're exempting two-thirds of the budget and you're focusing only on non-defense discretionary, which actually is only about 500 billion or 15 percent of the budget, it's pretty obvious you can't get the job done.
How exactly is he getting from "almost 2/3" to 85%?
 

jambalaya

Cynical Optimist
DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
968
Location
Columbia, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
didn't you know that it is fiscally responsible to give tax cuts to billionaires at a time when we are running a deficit

CAUGHT: Stewart Shows GOP's 'New' Pledge Exactly The Same As The Old (VIDEO)
I think it is far more irresponsible to spend money you don't have on programs and projects you don't need for which we don't complain and punish elected officials nearly enough than to tax anybody. If you have the attitude "just let the rich pay for it" the spending problem will never be solved and economic expansion will be stifled. Wealthy people are a result of a robust economy. It is a necessary reality to a free market economy. We should control spending so nobody has to pay more taxes and that necessarily means "rich" folk too.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The GOP pledge effectively exempts 85% of the budget from cuts, leaving 15%, or $500 billion to be cut as the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan computes.

Former Reagan Adviser On GOP'S Pledge To America : NPR

Now, how the hell does the GOP think it can reduce the deficit and get us back into the black without touching that 85%? The deficit is over $1 trillion right now. If the GOP cut that entire 15% out, meaning no parks, no homeland defense, no corporate subsidies, no transfer payments to states for police, firefighters and education, no congress, no judicial branch, no executive branch, no non-military research grants as a short list, they still could not get even half way to cutting the deficit. And if they cut taxes, the reduction in revenue will cause the gap to grow even larger. Not to mention that cutting that much spending and layoff everyone from the President, the Chief Justice, Themselves to park rangers, that will cause a severe reduction in demand and spending further causing revenues to drop. And if they repeal Romneycare (let's be honest, the healthcare bill is little more then an old GOP policy), they have to further cut to make up the cost savings.

The numbers the GOP are playing with are beyond fantasy and moving well into the realm of delusionality caused by LSD overdose.

So have they lost their minds, or do they think we're all so incredibly stupid we'll buy this bat**** argument and give them the power to which they won't even try to use to enact their pledge for fear of massive voter retaliation?
The GOP doesn't want to turn off older Tea Party voters by saying the M-word. Medicare. They don't want to be the first one's to say, you people aren't dying fast enough. And they certainly don't want to tell their Health Care lobbyists, you charge way too much and provide poor service.

The Pledge was directed at Tea Party folks -- 'trust us'.

**Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts - How about pay down the deficit first? At least pay off the interest on the Iraq war for Christ sakes?

**repeal and replace health-care reform - With what? -- how do you propose to make health care pricing competitive and protect the consumer from unethical behavior by insurance companies?? Don't forget to explain how you will keep paying Medicare, Medicaid, and VA benefits while the cost of health care continues to go up??

**zero-out unspent stimulus funds - what were those funds supposed to go to? How do police and teachers in your states feel about losing their jobs?

**roll back government spending to 2008 levels – you could roll it back further than that by getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And make some major cuts here:

From the 2009 Fed Pie Chart

General Government $304 billion:
• Interest on debt (20%) - raise upper income taxes to pay this off.
• Homeland Security (15%) - come up with a plan to phase this out.
• NASA (50%) - ??? - refocus program toward private investment.

But the GOP likes to complain about these departments:

Human Resources: $789 billion
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.

Tell us how you would lay people off and not have unemployment go up. How do you create jobs by firing people? That's the rub. Remember, these government employees use their paycheck to purchase goods and services. You could eliminate HUD, DoE, and Food and Nutrition programs. But the political would make guarantee Dems regains seats in 2012.


boost national and border security, including fully funding missile defense - so, we're spending money to cut the deficit? And spending money on things that only make us 'feel' safer.

enforcing sanctions against Iran - which ones specifically, and how much will it cost us to enforce these?

reaffirming the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal immigration laws - Nudge-nudge, wink-wink to Tea Party supporters. "assist"...
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The GOP pledge effectively exempts 85% of the budget from cuts, leaving 15%, or $500 billion to be cut as the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan computes.

Former Reagan Adviser On GOP'S Pledge To America : NPR

Now, how the hell does the GOP think it can reduce the deficit and get us back into the black without touching that 85%? The deficit is over $1 trillion right now. If the GOP cut that entire 15% out, meaning no parks, no homeland defense, no corporate subsidies, no transfer payments to states for police, firefighters and education, no congress, no judicial branch, no executive branch, no non-military research grants as a short list, they still could not get even half way to cutting the deficit. And if they cut taxes, the reduction in revenue will cause the gap to grow even larger. Not to mention that cutting that much spending and layoff everyone from the President, the Chief Justice, Themselves to park rangers, that will cause a severe reduction in demand and spending further causing revenues to drop. And if they repeal Romneycare (let's be honest, the healthcare bill is little more then an old GOP policy), they have to further cut to make up the cost savings.

The numbers the GOP are playing with are beyond fantasy and moving well into the realm of delusionality caused by LSD overdose.

So have they lost their minds, or do they think we're all so incredibly stupid we'll buy this bat**** argument and give them the power to which they won't even try to use to enact their pledge for fear of massive voter retaliation?
I think the party thinks we're all idiots. I believe they're spoke to as us we're idiots for a long time. Acting as if we can't understand complexity and simplfying to the point of being childish, they treat us as idiots.

I will add this isn't limited to the GOP, who have shown repeatedly that treating us like idiots works. Both parties to it do a degree. The GOP has just been more successful with overall.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I suspect their message is aimed at people that are actually working...that have jobs...that are productive members of society, and not necessarily economic 'geniuses' that are unemployed, underemployed, and/or still live in their mommy's basement.

Unless the government (both majority parties) demonstrate a willingness to severely cut federal spending then why in the hell SHOULDNT people be upset about taxes? Why shouldnt the rich (who have proven they can do a better job with their money than congress) want to keep and invest and yes...I know this stings all the crippled dependent little pets....but also make even MORE profit?

Liberals...democrats...have controlled both the house and senate for 4 years. Both parties have contributed to the 14 trillion debt. I will take the liberal faux outrage serious the second they are as upset with the democrats as they are with republicans.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I suspect their message is aimed at people that are actually working...that have jobs...that are productive members of society, and not necessarily economic 'geniuses' that are unemployed, underemployed, and/or still live in their mommy's basement.

Unless the government (both majority parties) demonstrate a willingness to severely cut federal spending then why in the hell SHOULDNT people be upset about taxes? Why shouldnt the rich (who have proven they can do a better job with their money than congress) want to keep and invest and yes...I know this stings all the crippled dependent little pets....but also make even MORE profit?

Liberals...democrats...have controlled both the house and senate for 4 years. Both parties have contributed to the 14 trillion debt. I will take the liberal faux outrage serious the second they are as upset with the democrats as they are with republicans.
Ditto with republican outrage.

We've had the contract / pledge before. Why would anyone take it seriously?
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I suspect their message is aimed at people that are actually working...that have jobs...that are productive members of society, and not necessarily economic 'geniuses' that are unemployed, underemployed, and/or still live in their mommy's basement.
No statistical breakdown of political lean has ever found any one party to have the market cornered on 'productive members of society'.

Your mischaracterizing the of opposition as 'unemployed, underemployed, and/or still live in their mommy's basement' is based on your total ignorance as to how people typically lose their jobs.

Unless the government (both majority parties) demonstrate a willingness to severely cut federal spending then why in the hell SHOULDNT people be upset about taxes? Why shouldnt the rich (who have proven they can do a better job with their money than congress) want to keep and invest and yes...I know this stings all the crippled dependent little pets....but also make even MORE profit?
Everybody thinks they know better than congress. Sure, not raising the top marginal rate will keep more money flowing, but so will raising it and then putting tax revenue into stimulus type programs. There needs to be a balanced approach, keeping the regrowing the economy while maintaing the working class and standard of living during slowdowns.

I support a reasonable discussion about what is called for at this moment in time. Talking points from both sides make less educated people on both sides think they understand the complexity of issues. It's not Rich vs. Middle class/ lower class.

Liberals...democrats...have controlled both the house and senate for 4 years. Both parties have contributed to the 14 trillion debt. I will take the liberal faux outrage serious the second they are as upset with the democrats as they are with republicans.
We can breakdown and parse what the Democrats have/have not done in the last 4 years and ask was that the best way to address the problem? We can also ask, what would the GOP have done differently with AIG, Banks, Auto, defense, Afghanistan, Iraq, Medicare, unemployment and money to the states.

When I hear someone complain about 'Bailouts', I always ask, what was the alternative? "Let 'em fail!" is the answer I get most often, as if it were that simple.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ditto with republican outrage.

We've had the contract / pledge before. Why would anyone take it seriously?
I left the party due to my 'outrage'. Both sides are garbage. Both sides are culpable. So are the people that play mindless ideological and partisan games.

I agree...there needs to be a hell of a lot more than rhetoric. There needs to be an ironclad guarantee to dramatically cut spending. There needs to be a commitment and plan to pay off the debt. there shouldn't be any talk of tax cuts until the debt is paid off, but if they refuse to pay off the debt and cut federal spending then not only should the tax cuts be extended but they should be expanded.

People really need to get a solid grip on what 'tax cuts' are. they aren't some government giveaway program...they are designed to allow people to keep more of what they have EARNED. Those earning have proved they at least know how to create wealth. Its asinine to allow those that don't know how or those that have proved they cannot to have access to other peoples income.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No statistical breakdown of political lean has ever found any one party to have the market cornered on 'productive members of society'.

Your mischaracterizing the of opposition as 'unemployed, underemployed, and/or still live in their mommy's basement' is based on your total ignorance as to how people typically lose their jobs.



Everybody thinks they know better than congress. Sure, not raising the top marginal rate will keep more money flowing, but so will raising it and then putting tax revenue into stimulus type programs. There needs to be a balanced approach, keeping the regrowing the economy while maintaing the working class and standard of living during slowdowns.

I support a reasonable discussion about what is called for at this moment in time. Talking points from both sides make less educated people on both sides think they understand the complexity of issues. It's not Rich vs. Middle class/ lower class.



We can breakdown and parse what the Democrats have/have not done in the last 4 years and ask was that the best way to address the problem? We can also ask, what would the GOP have done differently with AIG, Banks, Auto, defense, Afghanistan, Iraq, Medicare, unemployment and money to the states.

When I hear someone complain about 'Bailouts', I always ask, what was the alternative? "Let 'em fail!" is the answer I get most often, as if it were that simple.
Oh...I REALLY dont think its very hard to point to those non-productive members of society and see on which side of the political and ideological spectrum they land. All you have to do is look at which party consistently panders to their crippled and dependent pets. Sure...lots (not most) have lost jobs by means that are beyond their control. And who is 'helping' them? How is furthering a broken system accomplishing ANYTHING other than keeping them dependent? How is creating a GREATER financial hole through more out of control spending accomplishing ANYTHING? How is bailing out states and THEIR irresponsible spending accomplishing ANYTHING? Other than...you know...saddling future generations with even MORE debt. Things arent getting better. They are getting worse. They arent GOING to get better without some radical changes and that includes forcing government fiscal accountability.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,460
Reaction score
32,207
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think it is far more irresponsible to spend money you don't have on programs and projects you don't need for which we don't complain and punish elected officials nearly enough than to tax anybody. If you have the attitude "just let the rich pay for it" the spending problem will never be solved and economic expansion will be stifled. Wealthy people are a result of a robust economy. It is a necessary reality to a free market economy. We should control spending so nobody has to pay more taxes and that necessarily means "rich" folk too.
excellent observation [/s]
now complete the thought and identify the "programs and projects you [American citizens] don't need" and the savings which would be realized by ending them
we will then see how hollow your argument actually is
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Oh...I REALLY dont think its very hard to point to those non-productive members of society and see on which side of the political and ideological spectrum they land.
Here come the veiled racist talking points...


All you have to do is look at which party consistently panders to their crippled and dependent pets.
Pets? Is that the new code word?


Sure...lots (not most) have lost jobs by means that are beyond their control. And who is 'helping' them? How is furthering a broken system accomplishing ANYTHING other than keeping them dependent? How is creating a GREATER financial hole through more out of control spending accomplishing ANYTHING? How is bailing out states and THEIR irresponsible spending accomplishing ANYTHING?
1) total ignorance about unemployment trends and statistics
2) classic far-right strawman that the Dems are intentionally running up the debt
3) ignoring all points raise about alternatives to AIG, Banks, Auto... etc.






Other than...you know...saddling future generations with even MORE debt. Things arent getting better. They are getting worse. They arent GOING to get better without some radical changes and that includes forcing government fiscal accountability.
Maybe you didn't get the news, the recession ended. Things have improved at a steady rate.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I left the party due to my 'outrage'. Both sides are garbage. Both sides are culpable. So are the people that play mindless ideological and partisan games.

I agree...there needs to be a hell of a lot more than rhetoric. There needs to be an ironclad guarantee to dramatically cut spending. There needs to be a commitment and plan to pay off the debt. there shouldn't be any talk of tax cuts until the debt is paid off, but if they refuse to pay off the debt and cut federal spending then not only should the tax cuts be extended but they should be expanded.

People really need to get a solid grip on what 'tax cuts' are. they aren't some government giveaway program...they are designed to allow people to keep more of what they have EARNED. Those earning have proved they at least know how to create wealth. Its asinine to allow those that don't know how or those that have proved they cannot to have access to other peoples income.
Of all the options, tax cut and spend is the most irresponsible. I understand tax and spend, cut spending and cut taxes, and cut spending and raise taxes. All have rationale I understand. Tax cut and spend doesn't. Like I said, it is easily the most irresponsible of the options.

I don't think we should listen to party at all, but listen to individuals, and seek those who have the best track record of doig the best job. And if they lie, look for thr next person. I don't care what party they are in. In each election one erson is more likely than another, even if it is the lessor of two evils.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here come the veiled racist talking points...




Pets? Is that the new code word?




1) total ignorance about unemployment trends and statistics
2) classic far-right strawman that the Dems are intentionally running up the debt
3) ignoring all points raise about alternatives to AIG, Banks, Auto... etc.








Maybe you didn't get the news, the recession ended. Things have improved at a steady rate.
Racist...thats ****ing HILARIOUS. Good lord, did you just steal a page out of the liberal playbook or what?

OH...wait...no YOU are the racist by DETERMINING that me calling the crippled and dependent pets crippled and dependent pets was in reference to some specific minority and not ALL people of ALL races that are crippled and dependent pets. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for putting your racism on display like that. But I somehow doubt you WILL be.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The GOP pledge effectively exempts 85% of the budget from cuts, leaving 15%, or $500 billion to be cut as the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan computes.

Now, how the hell does the GOP think it can reduce the deficit and get us back into the black without touching that 85%?
There is no carry-over deficit listed in the US tax records, only the growing National Debt...

Check it out for yourself in the 2010 World Almanac, page 62...

ricksfolly
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,249
Reaction score
3,976
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think the NPR audio and John Stewart's GOP play-by-play are very telling. Still, I'd like to add my :twocents: worth...

I understand people being upset about government spending and some portions of health care reform legislation, but honestly the way I see it if Republicans had been good conservative stewards when GW Bush took office, maybe alot of the spending we see now wouldn't have occurred or even been necessary. For example, TARP.

Most people blame the bailouts of the banks and GM/Chrysler on Pres. Obama, but these initiatives actually came under GW Bush. Most people mistakenly believe that there were two separate TARP programs: the first under GW Bush that he enacted prior to leaving office, and the second under Pres. Obama. Moreover, they believe that the auto bailout was also initiated by Pres. Obama. Truth is, TARP was implemented in three separate stages, all either based on deadlines set originally by GW Bush before he left office or out of necessity at Bush's decretion (i.e., auto bailout):

The first allocation of the TARP money was primarily used to buy preferred stock, which is similar to debt in that it gets paid before common equity shareholders.
The second was the bailout of GM/Chrysler. I found this commentary on PolitiFact.com that refutes comments Pres. Obama made concerning aid former Pres. GW Bush provided to the auto industry - GM/Chrysler. My first thought was "WHAT? GW Bush gave financial aid to the auto industry? I thought Obama bailed out GM/Chysler?" After all, that's what the media and political pundits have been reporting, right? But as it turns out, GW Bush used money from TARP to bail out GM/Chysler.

Back in the fall of 2008, the Bush administration realized the automakers were in dire staights and looked to Congress to put together an aid package. But by December, Congress showed no intention of acting. So the Bush administration decided to go ahead on its own, using money the Treasury Department already had authorization to use through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

The Treasury Department released documents Dec. 19, 2008, that outlined conditions for $13.4 billion in loans it was offering General Motors and Chrysler.
So, why did it seem that the auto bailout was Obama's doing? It was because of two separate deadlines that Bush placed on the automakers. The first deadline was for Feb. 17, 2009 which "required the companies (GM/Chrysler) to submit detailed restructuring plans to show how the[y] planned to achieve and sustain 'long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency.'" The second deadline was set for Mar. 31, 2009, and required GM/Chrysler to "cut their debt by two-thirds, reduce payments to their health care funds by 50% for UAW retirees and show proof of [their company's] net positive value." In both cases, the Obama Administration, under conditions previously set for the terms of the loans, had to take appropriate steps to ensure that both GM & Chrysler returned to solvency and that taxpayers dollars wouldn't be lost.

The third...

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP) to buy toxic assets from banks' balance sheets.
There was a reason this was done. To understand it, you'll have to read the linked Wikipedia summary report (above) on the TARP program. In any case, according to Wikipedia (updated effective today 9/27/10):

Of the $245 billion invested in U.S. banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.[4] In March 2010, GM repaid more than $2 billion to the U.S. and Canadian governments and on April 21 GM announced the entire loan portion of the U.S. and Canadian governments' investments had been paid back in full, with interest, for a total of $8.1 billion.
So, folks can stop all this "nationalization" of banks and "socialism" nonsense. But I digress...

Had the so-called Conservative Republicans did right by the American people when they held office/Congress, chances are we wouldn't have been in this economic mess in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, they had their turn and they blew it badly. I'm in no hurry to give them back control of governance. They haven't shown themselves worthy and this absord Pledge proves they're all about "more of the same" BS.
 
Last edited:

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Racist...thats ****ing HILARIOUS. Good lord, did you just steal a page out of the liberal playbook or what?
It's not funny at all, it's sad how you see the unemployed.

Can you answer the question-- Pets? is that your word?

OH...wait...no YOU are the racist by DETERMINING that me calling the crippled and dependent pets crippled and dependent pets was in reference to some specific minority and not ALL people of ALL races that are crippled and dependent pets. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for putting your racism on display like that. But I somehow doubt you WILL be.
Sounds like you're doing the far-rightie backpedal.... but tell us more about the 'pets'. Give us your detailed views on the typical unemployed person.
 
Top Bottom