GOP Budget 'Priorities'...and Social Values

[Darkwind]

Yesterday, the GOP-led Senate revealed its latest budget proposal (see the AP story below)...The question arises regarding the underlying values that ultimately define the difference between the priorities of the two major parties.....

It is striking to learn that, not only is the GOP (in an election cycle) still steadfast in trying to defund the ACA, but also wants to throw MORE funds to the Pentagon, while cutting back on Medicare, food stamps and other social programs.....

QUESTION: Does our country need more spending on armaments and war-preparations.....OR.....do we need to increase spending on our own population including JOB creation and infrastructure programs?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday adopted a GOP budget that paves the way for an assault on President Barack Obama's health care law this summer and a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed the nonbinding measure by a nearly party-line 51-48 vote. The House adopted it last week.

The measure sets a potential path for a balanced budget within a decade. It promises to cut domestic agencies and safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, carve up transportation spending and student aid, and curb tax breaks for the poor.

Republicans don't plan to adhere to most of its cuts in follow-up legislation, however.

And in the near term the GOP plan promises a $38 billion, 7 percent increase for the Pentagon that is possible only by padding war accounts.

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

 

[there4eyeM]

...best being the enemy of good, and all...

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yesterday, the GOP-led Senate revealed its latest budget proposal (see the AP story below)...The question arises regarding the underlying values that ultimately define the difference between the priorities of the two major parties.....

It is striking to learn that, not only is the GOP (in an election cycle) still steadfast in trying to defund the ACA, but also wants to throw MORE funds to the Pentagon, while cutting back on Medicare, food stamps and other social programs.....

QUESTION: Does our country need more spending on armaments and war-preparations.....OR.....do we need to increase spending on our own population including JOB creation and infrastructure programs?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday adopted a GOP budget that paves the way for an assault on President Barack Obama's health care law this summer and a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed the nonbinding measure by a nearly party-line 51-48 vote. The House adopted it last week.

The measure sets a potential path for a balanced budget within a decade. It promises to cut domestic agencies and safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, carve up transportation spending and student aid, and curb tax breaks for the poor.

Republicans don't plan to adhere to most of its cuts in follow-up legislation, however.

And in the near term the GOP plan promises a $38 billion, 7 percent increase for the Pentagon that is possible only by padding war accounts.

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So – building roads to nowhere are jobs programs but bombs and aircraft are not….

Not just roads.

ASCE 2013 Report Card for America s Infrastructure

 

[danielpalos]

Yesterday, the GOP-led Senate revealed its latest budget proposal (see the AP story below)...The question arises regarding the underlying values that ultimately define the difference between the priorities of the two major parties.....

It is striking to learn that, not only is the GOP (in an election cycle) still steadfast in trying to defund the ACA, but also wants to throw MORE funds to the Pentagon, while cutting back on Medicare, food stamps and other social programs.....

QUESTION: Does our country need more spending on armaments and war-preparations.....OR.....do we need to increase spending on our own population including JOB creation and infrastructure programs?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday adopted a GOP budget that paves the way for an assault on President Barack Obama's health care law this summer and a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed the nonbinding measure by a nearly party-line 51-48 vote. The House adopted it last week.

The measure sets a potential path for a balanced budget within a decade. It promises to cut domestic agencies and safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, carve up transportation spending and student aid, and curb tax breaks for the poor.

Republicans don't plan to adhere to most of its cuts in follow-up legislation, however.

And in the near term the GOP plan promises a $38 billion, 7 percent increase for the Pentagon that is possible only by padding war accounts.

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

nope; there is no justification for a warfare-State economic paradigm over a welfare-State paradigm without wartime tax rates being a consideration.

 

[danielpalos]

Yesterday, the GOP-led Senate revealed its latest budget proposal (see the AP story below)...The question arises regarding the underlying values that ultimately define the difference between the priorities of the two major parties.....

It is striking to learn that, not only is the GOP (in an election cycle) still steadfast in trying to defund the ACA, but also wants to throw MORE funds to the Pentagon, while cutting back on Medicare, food stamps and other social programs.....

QUESTION: Does our country need more spending on armaments and war-preparations.....OR.....do we need to increase spending on our own population including JOB creation and infrastructure programs?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday adopted a GOP budget that paves the way for an assault on President Barack Obama's health care law this summer and a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed the nonbinding measure by a nearly party-line 51-48 vote. The House adopted it last week.

The measure sets a potential path for a balanced budget within a decade. It promises to cut domestic agencies and safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, carve up transportation spending and student aid, and curb tax breaks for the poor.

Republicans don't plan to adhere to most of its cuts in follow-up legislation, however.

And in the near term the GOP plan promises a $38 billion, 7 percent increase for the Pentagon that is possible only by padding war accounts.

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

no faith in the private sector to come up with better solutions at lower cost, Person on the Right?

 

[rdean]

So – building roads to nowhere are jobs programs but bombs and aircraft are not….

Moron. Where do they dig up your kind:

Economic Crisis Forces Local Governments to Let Asphalt Roads Return to Gravel - WSJ

Pavement Maintenance Lagging Many Roads Returning to Gravel

Texas can t afford paved roads replaces them with gravel RT USA

Counties turn some paved roads back to gravel

It irritates me these right wingers are so fucking brain dead. They pop up with the most ignorant things thinking they are being clever. Such stupid tools. Worse, they are so stupid, they think make bombs is somehow producing.

 

[Darkwind]

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

If we did nothing, we'd be less safe. Which is why I agree with you. Obama has done squat and we're more vulnerable now then at any point in the past 5 years.

However, that does not mean we stop trying or stop working to change priorities.

 

[Darkwind]

Yesterday, the GOP-led Senate revealed its latest budget proposal (see the AP story below)...The question arises regarding the underlying values that ultimately define the difference between the priorities of the two major parties.....

It is striking to learn that, not only is the GOP (in an election cycle) still steadfast in trying to defund the ACA, but also wants to throw MORE funds to the Pentagon, while cutting back on Medicare, food stamps and other social programs.....

QUESTION: Does our country need more spending on armaments and war-preparations.....OR.....do we need to increase spending on our own population including JOB creation and infrastructure programs?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday adopted a GOP budget that paves the way for an assault on President Barack Obama's health care law this summer and a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed the nonbinding measure by a nearly party-line 51-48 vote. The House adopted it last week.

The measure sets a potential path for a balanced budget within a decade. It promises to cut domestic agencies and safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, carve up transportation spending and student aid, and curb tax breaks for the poor.

Republicans don't plan to adhere to most of its cuts in follow-up legislation, however.

And in the near term the GOP plan promises a $38 billion, 7 percent increase for the Pentagon that is possible only by padding war accounts.

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

nope; there is no justification for a warfare-State economic paradigm over a welfare-State paradigm without wartime tax rates being a consideration.

Sure there is. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with hit, however.

 

[Darkwind]

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

no faith in the private sector to come up with better solutions at lower cost, Person on the Right?

In this case, it is a responsibility of the government. The government does have a few responsibilities. The problem is, it is overtaxed with other nonsense to take care of its primary task. I wonder how that came about?

 

[danielpalos]

Yesterday, the GOP-led Senate revealed its latest budget proposal (see the AP story below)...The question arises regarding the underlying values that ultimately define the difference between the priorities of the two major parties.....

It is striking to learn that, not only is the GOP (in an election cycle) still steadfast in trying to defund the ACA, but also wants to throw MORE funds to the Pentagon, while cutting back on Medicare, food stamps and other social programs.....

QUESTION: Does our country need more spending on armaments and war-preparations.....OR.....do we need to increase spending on our own population including JOB creation and infrastructure programs?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Tuesday adopted a GOP budget that paves the way for an assault on President Barack Obama's health care law this summer and a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed the nonbinding measure by a nearly party-line 51-48 vote. The House adopted it last week.

The measure sets a potential path for a balanced budget within a decade. It promises to cut domestic agencies and safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, carve up transportation spending and student aid, and curb tax breaks for the poor.

Republicans don't plan to adhere to most of its cuts in follow-up legislation, however.

And in the near term the GOP plan promises a $38 billion, 7 percent increase for the Pentagon that is possible only by padding war accounts.

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

nope; there is no justification for a warfare-State economic paradigm over a welfare-State paradigm without wartime tax rates being a consideration.

Sure there is. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with hit, however.

only false capitalists don't agree that we need market based metrics under any form of Capitalism.

 

[Darkwind]

You don't spend government money to create jobs. That is your whole problem right there.

Cut regulations and remove government from the free market and jobs will be created.

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

nope; there is no justification for a warfare-State economic paradigm over a welfare-State paradigm without wartime tax rates being a consideration.

Sure there is. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with hit, however.

only false capitalists don't agree that we need market based metrics under any form of Capitalism.

Do you fail this often?

 

[Sonny Clark]

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

If we did nothing, we'd be less safe. Which is why I agree with you. Obama has done squat and we're more vulnerable now then at any point in the past 5 years.

However, that does not mean we stop trying or stop working to change priorities.

Nope, giving up is a huge NO-NO, I agree. But, we're not safe, and I wonder why since we've spent $Zillions on national security. Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[danielpalos]

let's cut the regulatory burden on Commerce known as our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

nope; there is no justification for a warfare-State economic paradigm over a welfare-State paradigm without wartime tax rates being a consideration.

Sure there is. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with hit, however.

only false capitalists don't agree that we need market based metrics under any form of Capitalism.

Do you fail this often?

only when i have nothing but fallacy for my Cause; so, not very often.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

If we did nothing, we'd be less safe. Which is why I agree with you. Obama has done squat and we're more vulnerable now then at any point in the past 5 years.

However, that does not mean we stop trying or stop working to change priorities.

Nope, giving up is a huge NO-NO, I agree. But, we're not safe, and I wonder why since we've spent $Zillions on national security. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Three reasons.

In order for any national security to be effective, the participants cannot be fighting among themselves. In an old Star Trek episode where Kirk & Co. were stranded on the Enterprise with an equal number of Klingons, a famous line by the Klingon was, "Only a fool fights in a burning house".

Congress is busy looking good for their constituents, but if one side seems to be getting the upper hand with national security, the other side starts making up lies to bring them down. Example: A vast majority of congress voted for the War in Afghanistan after 9/11. When it looked as if the Republican President was making political points from being pro America security and war, the democrats began an active campaign of destroying him. Without a united front, we'll never be secure.

People have to come to realize that we live in a dangerous world. This means to be secure, we need to control our borders. I don't care how you come down on this issue, but if we just allow the enemy to walk on in, because we don't want to spend money protecting ourselves because protecting ourselves does not buy votes like spending money giving away free phones, then we'll never be secure.

We lie about our motives, but more importantly, we lie about the intent of our political enemies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

If we did nothing, we'd be less safe. Which is why I agree with you. Obama has done squat and we're more vulnerable now then at any point in the past 5 years.

However, that does not mean we stop trying or stop working to change priorities.

Nope, giving up is a huge NO-NO, I agree. But, we're not safe, and I wonder why since we've spent $Zillions on national security. Just doesn't make sense to me.

We've spent zillions on The Great Society as well... and haven't much to show for it... yet many claim we just need to spend more. Looka, I believe ALL these programs, including defense need revamping and can probably be safely cut to some extent. Some could probably be eliminated.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, we can cut two of those four....the other two are requirements for a safe society.

nope; there is no justification for a warfare-State economic paradigm over a welfare-State paradigm without wartime tax rates being a consideration.

Sure there is. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with hit, however.

only false capitalists don't agree that we need market based metrics under any form of Capitalism.

Do you fail this often?

only when i have nothing but fallacy for my Cause; so, not very often.

Seems to Me, your entire dialog here is nothing but one huge fallacy. I think you fail more than you know. The key, however; is admitting it to yourself. Have a nice day.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Thank

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

If we did nothing, we'd be less safe. Which is why I agree with you. Obama has done squat and we're more vulnerable now then at any point in the past 5 years.

However, that does not mean we stop trying or stop working to change priorities.

Nope, giving up is a huge NO-NO, I agree. But, we're not safe, and I wonder why since we've spent $Zillions on national security. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Three reasons.

In order for any national security to be effective, the participants cannot be fighting among themselves. In an old Star Trek episode where Kirk & Co. were stranded on the Enterprise with an equal number of Klingons, a famous line by the Klingon was, "Only a fool fights in a burning house".

Congress is busy looking good for their constituents, but if one side seems to be getting the upper hand with national security, the other side starts making up lies to bring them down. Example: A vast majority of congress voted for the War in Afghanistan after 9/11. When it looked as if the Republican President was making political points from being pro America security and war, the democrats began an active campaign of destroying him. Without a united front, we'll never be secure.

People have to come to realize that we live in a dangerous world. This means to be secure, we need to control our borders. I don't care how you come down on this issue, but if we just allow the enemy to walk on in, because we don't want to spend money protecting ourselves because protecting ourselves does not buy votes like spending money giving away free phones, then we'll never be secure.

We lie about our motives, but more importantly, we lie about the intent of our political enemies.

Thanks.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Are we safe?

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

If we did nothing, we'd be less safe. Which is why I agree with you. Obama has done squat and we're more vulnerable now then at any point in the past 5 years.

However, that does not mean we stop trying or stop working to change priorities.

Nope, giving up is a huge NO-NO, I agree. But, we're not safe, and I wonder why since we've spent $Zillions on national security. Just doesn't make sense to me.

We've spent zillions on The Great Society as well... and haven't much to show for it... yet many claim we just need to spend more. Looka, I believe ALL these programs, including defense need revamping and can probably be safely cut to some extent. Some could probably be eliminated.

I agree.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Safer than if we did nothing. Expecting a perfect solution is a long wait for a train that don't never come.

Nothing can be perfect, I agree. But, regardless of the astronomical amount of money we've spent on national security, our ports remain unprotected, we have open borders, and it's not too far fetched to believe that terrorists live here among us. Are we safe? The answer is no, not in the least.

If we did nothing, we'd be less safe. Which is why I agree with you. Obama has done squat and we're more vulnerable now then at any point in the past 5 years.

However, that does not mean we stop trying or stop working to change priorities.

Nope, giving up is a huge NO-NO, I agree. But, we're not safe, and I wonder why since we've spent $Zillions on national security. Just doesn't make sense to me.

We've spent zillions on The Great Society as well... and haven't much to show for it... yet many claim we just need to spend more. Looka, I believe ALL these programs, including defense need revamping and can probably be safely cut to some extent. Some could probably be eliminated.

I agree.

The problem is you have defense contractors hooked on their $$$... you have an entire underclass hooked on their government freebies.... and on and on. You start cutting back on these things.... there's going to be hell to pay... and votes lost.