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

[VanceMack]

It's not funny at all, it's sad how you see the unemployed.

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



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.

Well...since Ive used it on COUNTLESS occasions to describe not the unemployed but those that lay down and wait for mommy gov to take care of them...yes...of COURSE its my word...its the way I describe the group of crippled and dependent pets that the democrats pander to. Backpedal? You dont know me very well. I have NO PROBLEM calling them what they are. YOU on the other hand jumped in with both feet and assumed race. What a pathetic, bigoted, racist mind...good lord, son...seriously??? In this day and age???

 

[washunut]

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.

I think voting for a person rather than a party made more sense a few years ago when most of the time congress people would vote the way they felt they should. Our government seems to be devolving into a parlimentary type system where congress votes with their respective party on the key issues.

For example both senators from NY voted for finreg. Whatever the country feels about the bill, everyone has to acknowledge that the bill will be costly to NY state in jobs and money. We would not expect the senators from Iowa to vote against corn subsidies as they look out for their constituents but the senators from NY vote against wall street.

 

[UtahBill]

I love the smell of GOP desperation in the morning air..... The more desperate they get, the more stupid they get.

 

[obvious Child]

How exactly is he getting from "almost 2/3" to 85%?

Entitlements + Defense. Note: "So if you're exempting two-thirds of the budget and you're focusing only on non-defense discretionary"

 

[obvious Child]

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.

Unlikely. Considering I work with taxes as a my job, it's clearly not aimed at productive members of society. It doesn't take a tax accountant to realize that the GOP is delusional with its numbers. It is mathematically impossible they can cut the deficit by only cutting non-defense discretionary. Unless you think $500 billion = $1.1 trillion. eace

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?

And this is relevant to the post how?

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.

Tell me, why do you find it acceptable to deficit spend during economic booms?

 

[Boo Radley]

I think voting for a person rather than a party made more sense a few years ago when most of the time congress people would vote the way they felt they should. Our government seems to be devolving into a parlimentary type system where congress votes with their respective party on the key issues.

For example both senators from NY voted for finreg. Whatever the country feels about the bill, everyone has to acknowledge that the bill will be costly to NY state in jobs and money. We would not expect the senators from Iowa to vote against corn subsidies as they look out for their constituents but the senators from NY vote against wall street.

I see your point, but would still like to resist that thinking. perhaps if they lost enough, they would go to survivial mode and start listening. Who knows?

 

[RightinNYC]

Entitlements + Defense. Note: "So if you're exempting two-thirds of the budget and you're focusing only on non-defense discretionary"

I'm just not sure how he's defining those terms and arriving at that number.

All the republicans said is that they will exempt Seniors, veterans, and defense.

If you add up SS, DoD, Medicare, Homeland Security, and interest on the debt, that totals about 58% of expenditures. That leaves 1.49T on the table to be cut. The term "mandatory spending" is something of a misnomer, because Congress is free to make mandatory spending into discretionary spending at any time.

 

[UtahBill]

I'm just not sure how he's defining those terms and arriving at that number.

All the republicans said is that they will exempt Seniors, veterans, and defense.

If you add up SS, DoD, Medicare, Homeland Security, and interest on the debt, that totals about 58% of expenditures. That leaves 1.49T on the table to be cut. The term "mandatory spending" is something of a misnomer, because Congress is free to make mandatory spending into discretionary spending at any time.

veterans is only about 1.5%, while defense is almost 19%. Gots to wonder why so many politicians worry so much about how much our veterans are costing us, but are so willing to pony up for defense. If our govt wasn't so damn determined to stick its nose in other country's business, we would not be spending so much on defense...

 

[obvious Child]

I'm just not sure how he's defining those terms and arriving at that number.

It looks like he's counting Medicaid as well with mandatory spending. Which I calculate with the previously stated items comes out to 80.11%. Not far from his original statement.

All the republicans said is that they will exempt Seniors, veterans, and defense.

If you add up SS, DoD, Medicare, Homeland Security, and interest on the debt, that totals about 58% of expenditures. That leaves 1.49T on the table to be cut. The term "mandatory spending" is something of a misnomer, because Congress is free to make mandatory spending into discretionary spending at any time.

We'll have to see if stockman posts his calculation. I'm not sure what fiscal budget he's using as well.

 

[cpwill]

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?

it's partly that one. Republicans are still in the bargaining stage of grief; if we just reduce the rate of growth in unrestrained spending for 15% of the economy, surely that will save us, right?

 

[UtahBill]

it's partly that one. Republicans are still in the bargaining stage of grief; if we just reduce the rate of growth in unrestrained spending for 15% of the economy, surely that will save us, right?

The GOP had some success with Contract With America, so they are trotting out that old idea again. They are assuming that the electorate is gullible enough to believe them....and it might be true.

 

[cpwill]

that's why i like O'Donnel; i want Republicans to feel fear.

 

[hazlnut]

that's why i like O'Donnel; i want Republicans to feel fear.

Fear of being sued...??

In 2003, O'Donnell moved to Delaware to work for Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a non profit conservative educational organization, and bought a house in Wilmington.[26][27] She registered a gender discrimination complaint against ISI with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after which she was fired in 2004.[4] She then sued ISI in federal court for $6.9 million for wrongful termination claiming gender discrimination and that she had been fired in retaliation for filing the EEOC discrimination complaint. She said ISI's actions caused her mental anguish[4][28] and were a consequence of "ISI's conservative beliefs".[29] She also claimed and that she had lost future financial earning power because ISI's actions had delayed her education.[nb 3] ISI defended its action by alleging that she had conducted a for-profit public-relations business while on their time.[4][19] O'Donnell dropped the suit in 2008, stating she could no longer afford an attorney.[4][27][30]

Or fear of being embarrassed by their candidate.

In 2008 O'Donnell defaulted on the mortgage for her Wilmington house and the mortgage company obtained a judgment against her for $90,000. The house was due to be sold at a sheriff's auction in August 2008 when she sold it the month prior to her campaign's lawyer, her then boyfriend.[4][31]

The Internal Revenue Service filed a lien in 2010 that said that O'Donnell owed $11,000 in back taxes and penalties from 2005, according to public records.[4] O’Donnell said that it was a mistake and a computer error,[32] and noted that the IRS agent handling the matter claimed he was perplexed by the agency's actions.[4] In campaign finance reports, she listed herself as self-employed and said she was doing odd jobs to make ends meet.[4]

Because of financial difficulties, she moved to a Delaware townhouse, where she paid half the rent with campaign funds because she also used separate quarters in the residence as her campaign headquarters for her 2010 Senate run.[4] Between 2007 and 2009 the Federal Election Commission cited her eight times for failing to supply contributions reports on time.[4]

Christine O'Donnell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UtahBill]

According to John Boehner, the pledge is a result of the GOP's "Listening to America". The GOP asked us to tell us what we thought was most important, and somehow the result is this lame pledge. What are the odds that we will never see the raw data from their survey? I think they ignored the info we citizens supplied and just put in what the old GOP GUARD wanted all along.
Certainly they didn't list the idea of indexing congressional pay to minimum wage, or the idea of term limits, or providing for mandatory prison terms for any politician who betrays the public trust for personal gain.

 

[cpwill]

Fear of being sued...??

no. if mike castle can be beaten by o'donnel.....


then everyone is vulnerable

 

[UtahBill]

no. if mike castle can be beaten by o'donnel.....


then everyone is vulnerable

Delaware was the first state to ratify the constitution, now it can be first to elect an idiot....
or has that distinction been spoken for?
Castle would have to be caught red handed at some morally reprehensible act to lose this election...even running as an independent. Choice will be between him and the democrat...

 

[obvious Child]

According to John Boehner, the pledge is a result of the GOP's "Listening to America". The GOP asked us to tell us what we thought was most important, and somehow the result is this lame pledge. What are the odds that we will never see the raw data from their survey? I think they ignored the info we citizens supplied and just put in what the old GOP GUARD wanted all along.
Certainly they didn't list the idea of indexing congressional pay to minimum wage, or the idea of term limits, or providing for mandatory prison terms for any politician who betrays the public trust for personal gain.

I didn't know America wanted to get rid of virtually the entire government. The millions flocking to state parks suggests otherwise.

What are the odds the GOP just made some **** up and ran with it?

We need to go back to Spartan ideas. When a politician comes off of office, they go on trial. If convicted, they are imprisoned.

 

[cpwill]

Delaware was the first state to ratify the constitution, now it can be first to elect an idiot....
or has that distinction been spoken for?
Castle would have to be caught red handed at some morally reprehensible act to lose this election...even running as an independent. Choice will be between him and the democrat...

castle came out and announced he wouldn't be running as an independent, or a write-in. previous plling shows that him running at this point actually helps o'donnel; as it splits the non-mad-as-hell vote.

 

[Orion]

Both parties are mainly interested in preserving their own power, and they will spend in order to curry favour with their supporters. Now that the democrats have shown that they too will continue spending despite a recession, the GOP is just going to continue on track as they always have. The same goes with issues regarding civil liberties. If both parties are going against the public, then it's impossible to vote out the offending party.