Is It Partisan Hackery?

[Coloradomtnman]

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, but especially the most recent Bush Administrations, the GOP has supported the Republican Presidents' large budgets and spending (including earmarks) resulting in a larger Federal government, something that conservatives abhor.

Now that a Democratic President has put forth a large spending budget, and the Federal government is Democrat-controlled putting the GOP in the minority and effectively out of power, the GOP makes very public dissident arguments and protests to the current spending bills and the budget, especially, and hypocritically, their loud criticisms of earmarks.

The GOP now readily accepts responsibility for not controlling fiscal spending and government size while in power, and since having lost the November elections, seem to have learned their lesson.

But, is this an attempt to undermine Democratic power to swing voters back to the GOP or, as Republican politicians have apologetically put it, have Republicans learned from the over-spending of the previous administrations and now, coincidentally, are putting their money where their mouths are?

Is this a political plot or a more mature GOP? Or both?

 

[Truthmatters]

That is why they are now the amazing shrinking party.

 

[toomuchtime_]

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, but especially the most recent Bush Administrations, the GOP has supported the Republican Presidents' large budgets and spending (including earmarks) resulting in a larger Federal government, something that conservatives abhor.

Now that a Democratic President has put forth a large spending budget, and the Federal government is Democrat-controlled putting the GOP in the minority and effectively out of power, the GOP makes very public dissident arguments and protests to the current spending bills and the budget, especially, and hypocritically, their loud criticisms of earmarks.

The GOP now readily accepts responsibility for not controlling fiscal spending and government size while in power, and since having lost the November elections, seem to have learned their lesson.

But, is this an attempt to undermine Democratic power to swing voters back to the GOP or, as Republican politicians have apologetically put it, have Republicans learned from the over-spending of the previous administrations and now, coincidentally, are putting their money where their mouths are?

Is this a political plot or a more mature GOP? Or both?

In the last administration, this was less a conflict between parties and more a conflict between the President and Congress. Bush did try to cut back on spending to compensate for his tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Congress, Democrats and Republicans, insisted on more spending than the President wanted. In this administration, our first openly pro pork President is the cheerleader in chief for bloated budgets and deficits and a massively increased national debt. The pendulum has now swung so far the other way that some Democrats in Congress are now trying to get the President to cut back on his massive spending plans.

While Obama claims these massive increases in spending will strengthen our economy in the long run by making US companies more competitive, there is no basis in fact or logic for these statements. In the case of the very expensive health insurance reforms Obama is championing, the companies in developed nations that have universal health insurance have little or no competitive advantage over us that can be linked to the differences between our health insurance systems.

In the case of Obama's green energy reforms, he claims that this will create millions of new green jobs, but how many traditional jobs associated with fossil fuels will be lost? Will there be a net gain or net loss of jobs? Will the new jobs be near the proposed wind farms in the midwest or the solar farms in the southwest? If so, what will happen to all those who now work in industries associated with fossil fuels who live elsewhere? Will the estimated trillions of dollars needed to build new wind and solar farms and the estimated hundreds of billions of dollars needed to build new high capacity transmission lines to accommodate them mean that both consumers and businesses be paying higher energy charges for decades to come to pay off these massive debts? Wouldn't that take the edge off of any alleged competitive advantage Obama claims?

The harder one looks at Obama's proposed increases in spending the more apparent it becomes that they are not driven by an interest in making America stronger or more more competitive but by an ideological agenda that wants to move to a government health insurance program without regard to what it costs or whether it will make us healthier or our industries more competitive and that wants to move away from fossil fuels without regard to what that will cost us or to whether that will make the US stronger or our industries more competitive.

Pressed by a reporter to explain Obama's apparently false claim in his address to Congress that his administration had found $2 trillion in savings in the budget, White House Press Secretary Gibbs responded, "I read some of the passionate rhetoric, but I didn't get quite so deeply into the matrixes."

What we need in Washington is an administration that is less interested in passionate rhetoric and more interested in what these ideologically driven goals will cost the American people.

 

[Old Rocks]

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, but especially the most recent Bush Administrations, the GOP has supported the Republican Presidents' large budgets and spending (including earmarks) resulting in a larger Federal government, something that conservatives abhor.

Now that a Democratic President has put forth a large spending budget, and the Federal government is Democrat-controlled putting the GOP in the minority and effectively out of power, the GOP makes very public dissident arguments and protests to the current spending bills and the budget, especially, and hypocritically, their loud criticisms of earmarks.

The GOP now readily accepts responsibility for not controlling fiscal spending and government size while in power, and since having lost the November elections, seem to have learned their lesson.

But, is this an attempt to undermine Democratic power to swing voters back to the GOP or, as Republican politicians have apologetically put it, have Republicans learned from the over-spending of the previous administrations and now, coincidentally, are putting their money where their mouths are?

Is this a political plot or a more mature GOP? Or both?

In the last administration, this was less a conflict between parties and more a conflict between the President and Congress. Bush did try to cut back on spending to compensate for his tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Congress, Democrats and Republicans, insisted on more spending than the President wanted. In this administration, our first openly pro pork President is the cheerleader in chief for bloated budgets and deficits and a massively increased national debt. The pendulum has now swung so far the other way that some Democrats in Congress are now trying to get the President to cut back on his massive spending plans.

While Obama claims these massive increases in spending will strengthen our economy in the long run by making US companies more competitive, there is no basis in fact or logic for these statements. In the case of the very expensive health insurance reforms Obama is championing, the companies in developed nations that have universal health insurance have little or no competitive advantage over us that can be linked to the differences between our health insurance systems.

In the case of Obama's green energy reforms, he claims that this will create millions of new green jobs, but how many traditional jobs associated with fossil fuels will be lost? Will there be a net gain or net loss of jobs? Will the new jobs be near the proposed wind farms in the midwest or the solar farms in the southwest? If so, what will happen to all those who now work in industries associated with fossil fuels who live elsewhere? Will the estimated trillions of dollars needed to build new wind and solar farms and the estimated hundreds of billions of dollars needed to build new high capacity transmission lines to accommodate them mean that both consumers and businesses be paying higher energy charges for decades to come to pay off these massive debts? Wouldn't that take the edge off of any alleged competitive advantage Obama claims?

The harder one looks at Obama's proposed increases in spending the more apparent it becomes that they are not driven by an interest in making America stronger or more more competitive but by an ideological agenda that wants to move to a government health insurance program without regard to what it costs or whether it will make us healthier or our industries more competitive and that wants to move away from fossil fuels without regard to what that will cost us or to whether that will make the US stronger or our industries more competitive.

Pressed by a reporter to explain Obama's apparently false claim in his address to Congress that his administration had found $2 trillion in savings in the budget, White House Press Secretary Gibbs responded, "I read some of the passionate rhetoric, but I didn't get quite so deeply into the matrixes."

What we need in Washington is an administration that is less interested in passionate rhetoric and more interested in what these ideologically driven goals will cost the American people.

Look at what the ideologically driven goals of the Conservatives of the last eight years have done to this nation. By the time we are done with Iraq, it will have cost us 3 trillion dollars. What if we had spent that much on health care and clean energy here in the US? Would we not be vastly better off?

So you are crying big crocodile tears about some fossil fuel workers having to relocate for jobs. Damn, there are about 5.1 million workers out there that would be glad to relocate for a decent paying job. You people have really done a job on the American econonmy and the working American Citizen.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, but especially the most recent Bush Administrations, the GOP has supported the Republican Presidents' large budgets and spending (including earmarks) resulting in a larger Federal government, something that conservatives abhor.

Now that a Democratic President has put forth a large spending budget, and the Federal government is Democrat-controlled putting the GOP in the minority and effectively out of power, the GOP makes very public dissident arguments and protests to the current spending bills and the budget, especially, and hypocritically, their loud criticisms of earmarks.

The GOP now readily accepts responsibility for not controlling fiscal spending and government size while in power, and since having lost the November elections, seem to have learned their lesson.

But, is this an attempt to undermine Democratic power to swing voters back to the GOP or, as Republican politicians have apologetically put it, have Republicans learned from the over-spending of the previous administrations and now, coincidentally, are putting their money where their mouths are?

Is this a political plot or a more mature GOP? Or both?

You have mischaracterized the argument, and the issue. During the campaign, Obama promised to hold the line on spending, go "line by line" through spending bills, etc. He promised "fiscal responsibility." Said he was a change agent. None of this has happened, and folks are calling him on it.

 

[editec]

FYI, according to something I just read thanks to Stumbleupon


1 TRILLION DOLLARS = All the mortgage payments of ALL existing mortgages for the next 14 months

or...

1 TRILLION DOLLARS = All the rental fees for all the rentors in American for the next THREE YEARS.

Just to give us ALL some idea of what money really means when our government spends it foolishly.

Now imagine the economic stimulus it might have afforded this nation were every mortgage forgiven for 7 months and every rent paid for the next 18 months, instead of the absurd way it's being invested right now.

Do you think THAT TRILLION bucks would stimulate YOUR ECONOMY if your mortgage was paid for the next 7 months or your rent for the next 18 months?

 

[toomuchtime_]

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, but especially the most recent Bush Administrations, the GOP has supported the Republican Presidents' large budgets and spending (including earmarks) resulting in a larger Federal government, something that conservatives abhor.

Now that a Democratic President has put forth a large spending budget, and the Federal government is Democrat-controlled putting the GOP in the minority and effectively out of power, the GOP makes very public dissident arguments and protests to the current spending bills and the budget, especially, and hypocritically, their loud criticisms of earmarks.

The GOP now readily accepts responsibility for not controlling fiscal spending and government size while in power, and since having lost the November elections, seem to have learned their lesson.

But, is this an attempt to undermine Democratic power to swing voters back to the GOP or, as Republican politicians have apologetically put it, have Republicans learned from the over-spending of the previous administrations and now, coincidentally, are putting their money where their mouths are?

Is this a political plot or a more mature GOP? Or both?

In the last administration, this was less a conflict between parties and more a conflict between the President and Congress. Bush did try to cut back on spending to compensate for his tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Congress, Democrats and Republicans, insisted on more spending than the President wanted. In this administration, our first openly pro pork President is the cheerleader in chief for bloated budgets and deficits and a massively increased national debt. The pendulum has now swung so far the other way that some Democrats in Congress are now trying to get the President to cut back on his massive spending plans.

While Obama claims these massive increases in spending will strengthen our economy in the long run by making US companies more competitive, there is no basis in fact or logic for these statements. In the case of the very expensive health insurance reforms Obama is championing, the companies in developed nations that have universal health insurance have little or no competitive advantage over us that can be linked to the differences between our health insurance systems.

In the case of Obama's green energy reforms, he claims that this will create millions of new green jobs, but how many traditional jobs associated with fossil fuels will be lost? Will there be a net gain or net loss of jobs? Will the new jobs be near the proposed wind farms in the midwest or the solar farms in the southwest? If so, what will happen to all those who now work in industries associated with fossil fuels who live elsewhere? Will the estimated trillions of dollars needed to build new wind and solar farms and the estimated hundreds of billions of dollars needed to build new high capacity transmission lines to accommodate them mean that both consumers and businesses be paying higher energy charges for decades to come to pay off these massive debts? Wouldn't that take the edge off of any alleged competitive advantage Obama claims?

The harder one looks at Obama's proposed increases in spending the more apparent it becomes that they are not driven by an interest in making America stronger or more more competitive but by an ideological agenda that wants to move to a government health insurance program without regard to what it costs or whether it will make us healthier or our industries more competitive and that wants to move away from fossil fuels without regard to what that will cost us or to whether that will make the US stronger or our industries more competitive.

Pressed by a reporter to explain Obama's apparently false claim in his address to Congress that his administration had found $2 trillion in savings in the budget, White House Press Secretary Gibbs responded, "I read some of the passionate rhetoric, but I didn't get quite so deeply into the matrixes."

What we need in Washington is an administration that is less interested in passionate rhetoric and more interested in what these ideologically driven goals will cost the American people.

Look at what the ideologically driven goals of the Conservatives of the last eight years have done to this nation. By the time we are done with Iraq, it will have cost us 3 trillion dollars. What if we had spent that much on health care and clean energy here in the US? Would we not be vastly better off?

So you are crying big crocodile tears about some fossil fuel workers having to relocate for jobs. Damn, there are about 5.1 million workers out there that would be glad to relocate for a decent paying job. You people have really done a job on the American econonmy and the working American Citizen.

The simple fact is that Obama has been using his "passionate rhetoric" to mislead the American people into believing his enormously expensive agenda will lead to a stronger America and a more competitive economy when there appears to be no basis in fact or logic to believe it will. How is it not accurate to characterize this as a campaign of lies in support of an ideologically driven agenda?

 

[alan1]

FYI, according to something I just read thanks to Stumbleupon


1 TRILLION DOLLARS = All the mortgage payments of ALL existing mortgages for the next 14 months

or...

1 TRILLION DOLLARS = All the rental fees for all the rentors in American for the next THREE YEARS.

Just to give us ALL some idea of what money really means when our government spends it foolishly.

Now imagine the economic stimulus it might have afforded this nation were every mortgage forgiven for 7 months and every rent paid for the next 18 months, instead of the absurd way it's being invested right now.

Do you think THAT TRILLION bucks would stimulate YOUR ECONOMY if your mortgage was paid for the next 7 months or your rent for the next 18 months?

Well, that is interesting.
Can you give me a link? I'd like to point that out on a few other places that I post.

 

[alan1]

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, but especially the most recent Bush Administrations, the GOP has supported the Republican Presidents' large budgets and spending (including earmarks) resulting in a larger Federal government, something that conservatives abhor.

Now that a Democratic President has put forth a large spending budget, and the Federal government is Democrat-controlled putting the GOP in the minority and effectively out of power, the GOP makes very public dissident arguments and protests to the current spending bills and the budget, especially, and hypocritically, their loud criticisms of earmarks.

The GOP now readily accepts responsibility for not controlling fiscal spending and government size while in power, and since having lost the November elections, seem to have learned their lesson.

But, is this an attempt to undermine Democratic power to swing voters back to the GOP or, as Republican politicians have apologetically put it, have Republicans learned from the over-spending of the previous administrations and now, coincidentally, are putting their money where their mouths are?

Is this a political plot or a more mature GOP? Or both?

You have mischaracterized the argument, and the issue. During the campaign, Obama promised to hold the line on spending, go "line by line" through spending bills, etc. He promised "fiscal responsibility." Said he was a change agent. None of this has happened, and folks are calling him on it.

He's a change agent all right.
As in change that results in 1 year deficit spending that dwarfs the previous administrations fiscal irresponsibilty

 

[Meister]

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, but especially the most recent Bush Administrations, the GOP has supported the Republican Presidents' large budgets and spending (including earmarks) resulting in a larger Federal government, something that conservatives abhor.

Now that a Democratic President has put forth a large spending budget, and the Federal government is Democrat-controlled putting the GOP in the minority and effectively out of power, the GOP makes very public dissident arguments and protests to the current spending bills and the budget, especially, and hypocritically, their loud criticisms of earmarks.

The GOP now readily accepts responsibility for not controlling fiscal spending and government size while in power, and since having lost the November elections, seem to have learned their lesson.

But, is this an attempt to undermine Democratic power to swing voters back to the GOP or, as Republican politicians have apologetically put it, have Republicans learned from the over-spending of the previous administrations and now, coincidentally, are putting their money where their mouths are?

Is this a political plot or a more mature GOP? Or both?

In the last administration, this was less a conflict between parties and more a conflict between the President and Congress. Bush did try to cut back on spending to compensate for his tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Congress, Democrats and Republicans, insisted on more spending than the President wanted. In this administration, our first openly pro pork President is the cheerleader in chief for bloated budgets and deficits and a massively increased national debt. The pendulum has now swung so far the other way that some Democrats in Congress are now trying to get the President to cut back on his massive spending plans.

While Obama claims these massive increases in spending will strengthen our economy in the long run by making US companies more competitive, there is no basis in fact or logic for these statements. In the case of the very expensive health insurance reforms Obama is championing, the companies in developed nations that have universal health insurance have little or no competitive advantage over us that can be linked to the differences between our health insurance systems.

In the case of Obama's green energy reforms, he claims that this will create millions of new green jobs, but how many traditional jobs associated with fossil fuels will be lost? Will there be a net gain or net loss of jobs? Will the new jobs be near the proposed wind farms in the midwest or the solar farms in the southwest? If so, what will happen to all those who now work in industries associated with fossil fuels who live elsewhere? Will the estimated trillions of dollars needed to build new wind and solar farms and the estimated hundreds of billions of dollars needed to build new high capacity transmission lines to accommodate them mean that both consumers and businesses be paying higher energy charges for decades to come to pay off these massive debts? Wouldn't that take the edge off of any alleged competitive advantage Obama claims?

The harder one looks at Obama's proposed increases in spending the more apparent it becomes that they are not driven by an interest in making America stronger or more more competitive but by an ideological agenda that wants to move to a government health insurance program without regard to what it costs or whether it will make us healthier or our industries more competitive and that wants to move away from fossil fuels without regard to what that will cost us or to whether that will make the US stronger or our industries more competitive.

Pressed by a reporter to explain Obama's apparently false claim in his address to Congress that his administration had found $2 trillion in savings in the budget, White House Press Secretary Gibbs responded, "I read some of the passionate rhetoric, but I didn't get quite so deeply into the matrixes."

What we need in Washington is an administration that is less interested in passionate rhetoric and more interested in what these ideologically driven goals will cost the American people.

Look at what the ideologically driven goals of the Conservatives of the last eight years have done to this nation. By the time we are done with Iraq, it will have cost us 3 trillion dollars. What if we had spent that much on health care and clean energy here in the US? Would we not be vastly better off?

So you are crying big crocodile tears about some fossil fuel workers having to relocate for jobs. Damn, there are about 5.1 million workers out there that would be glad to relocate for a decent paying job. You people have really done a job on the American econonmy and the working American Citizen.

Just like to know where your information came from with the spending of 3 trillion in Iraq..or is this just your assumption?
Also, Old Rocks....your messiah, and all of his colleagues were part of this mess were in. Let's not do the deflection game here.

 

[Meister]

FYI, according to something I just read thanks to Stumbleupon


1 TRILLION DOLLARS = All the mortgage payments of ALL existing mortgages for the next 14 months

or...

1 TRILLION DOLLARS = All the rental fees for all the rentors in American for the next THREE YEARS.

Just to give us ALL some idea of what money really means when our government spends it foolishly.

Now imagine the economic stimulus it might have afforded this nation were every mortgage forgiven for 7 months and every rent paid for the next 18 months, instead of the absurd way it's being invested right now.

Do you think THAT TRILLION bucks would stimulate YOUR ECONOMY if your mortgage was paid for the next 7 months or your rent for the next 18 months?

That's not what our government was ever set up to do. I worked hard and bought a house that I could afford, and didn't over extend myself. Besides, the government can't afford to be doing this either, because they're borrowing it, seems like it will just compound the problem.