Republican Pledge to Cut $100 Billion May Hit Education, Cancer Research

[Care4all]

$100 billion? THAT'S IT?????

At that rate, cutting the budget by $100 billion a year, IT WILL TAKE 14 YEARS before the budget is balanced!!!!!!!!!

AND

Going at that rate, the DEFICITS ADD UP $9.1 TRILLION added to our DEBT....plus whatever of SS surplus they use up in the budget that they will owe as well, and also added to our National DEBT.

And these are the yoyos that SAY they are fiscal conservatives?

Sure beats ADDING 100 Billion...

BTW, nowhere does it say "That's it"....

dr house
the first obama budget cut the deficit by almost 50 billion i believe....they DID NOT ADD 100 billion to it????? so why are ya saying that about adding 100 billion to the previous deficit???

 

[Dr.House]

$100 billion? THAT'S IT?????

At that rate, cutting the budget by $100 billion a year, IT WILL TAKE 14 YEARS before the budget is balanced!!!!!!!!!

AND

Going at that rate, the DEFICITS ADD UP $9.1 TRILLION added to our DEBT....plus whatever of SS surplus they use up in the budget that they will owe as well, and also added to our National DEBT.

And these are the yoyos that SAY they are fiscal conservatives?

Sure beats ADDING 100 Billion...

BTW, nowhere does it say "That's it"....

dr house
the first obama budget cut the deficit by almost 50 billion i believe....they DID NOT ADD 100 billion to it????? so why are ya saying that about adding 100 billion to the previous deficit???

I meant what I said... Cutting 100 B is better than adding 100 B to it... I didn't make reference to any administration's budget...

Having said that, personally I believe a continued one-party rule of our government would have resulted in additional deficit, but that is not what I meant by my statement...

 

[Big Fitz]

The goal should be to make about 1,000,000 civilian, federal employees unemployed and their jobs eliminated.

Better still, make em constitutional, and make em state employees or sell their jobs off to private companies to run.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Sarah Palin stated that the Defense Budget should be off limits. How many of you out there agree with this?

Link?

Sarah Palin: Our Bloated Military Budget Is What Makes Us Great | The Moderate Voice

“Something has to be done urgently to stop the out-of-control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny,” she said. “We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great. That is a price we cannot afford to pay.”

Personally I think having bases in nations that haven't seen war for generations is actually undermining the effectiveness of our military.

Regardless, Palin never said anything about cutting defense spending, she was CLEARLY talking about the Afghan War, which she doesn't feel we should pull out of.

I tend to disagree and think we need to begin to implement a serious exit strategy, and i also think we need to pull our financial support from Pakistan and most countries as well.

Pull USAID completely. Cut it down to an emergency response organization that only gives money to nations in the case of a major disaster (floods, earthquakes, foreign invasion, etc). Yes neocons that means no more billions in aid going to Israel every year.

We just can't afford the shit. They'll be alright.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, if you're gonna try to balance the budget by cutting, you need to come up with over a trillion in cuts. Would you know where to cut that much? Of course they aren't gonna balance the budget by cutting spending. That's just a mindless catch phrase for the wingnuts to regurgitate.

As too is no tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Samson twins are the ones I targeted with the pic. Sarah Lain ranks third on the "pssoibles" list for the GOP nomination in 2012 behind Huckabee and Romney. Huckabee cannot get on the ticket now for the GOP because he stated earlier in the year that he supports "some form" of legalization for illegal immigrants. Romney can't be on the ticket in 2012 because he is a Mormon and the GOP showed in 2008 that they will never allow a Mormon on their ticket. That leaves Caribou Barbie. So, for you to pretend that she has no influence over the GOP is disingenuous on your part, at best.

As far as her words on defense spending, if you can't see that she wants NO cuts to defense spending from her own quotes, then I cannot help you.

Here is a history lesson for you;

When clinton made cuts, he made them so deep we were no properly supplied or manned to respond after 9/11. remember the lack of proper body armor and armored Humvees?

That is what she is talking about, not some make believe in your head where everything means what you want it to mean.

In other words, you made shit up, got cought, and sissied out on admitting you were wrong.

Too bad you failed history. Even with unlimited defense budgets, our armed forces could not have been prepared to fight an occupational war against terrorists. That is why it is futile for our troops to ever have been in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are attempting to fight terrorism with a conventional warfare army. We lost in Vietnam due to our unwillingness to adapt tactics to fight a guerilla warfare style opponent and we have done the same thing now. You and Palin are fearmongering and I am very hopeful that the American voter is not so stupid that they will fall victim to it yet again.

the lack of supplies, men and armor was screamed about by your leaders at Bush, when bush pointed out that the military was at the level Clinton put it, you fucks shut up.

Damn, still can't admit you lied. Notice I changed it from "made a mistake" to lie. B/c at this point you can only be lying.

laters.

 

[Oddball]

why didn't Article 1, Section 8 simply end there

It did end there dipshit. I gave you the first and last lines of article 1 section 8.

You've never actually read the thing, have you?

I've read it all and can comprehend it...Marxist meatheads like you, OTOH, merely cherry-pick the varieties and "translate" them to mean that you can do what you want when you want.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well I'll be damned. I need some new shoes. What government agency is in charge of that aspect of promoting the general welfare?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think comfy and affordable footwear is a necessary component of anyone's life...

 

[LiberalNut]

I think comfy and affordable footwear is a necessary component of anyone's life...

Good for you. So now you should petition the government to pass a law that would provide everyone shoes. You see, it's called representative democracy. The Congress, responding to the will of the people theoretically, passes laws to promote the general welfare. A minority of wingnuts don't get to say that Acts of Congress aren't in the General Welfare or are somehow unconstitutional because...er...they say so.

 

[Samson]

Link?

Sarah Palin: Our Bloated Military Budget Is What Makes Us Great | The Moderate Voice

“Something has to be done urgently to stop the out-of-control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny,” she said. “We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great. That is a price we cannot afford to pay.”

Palin never said anything about cutting defense spending, she was CLEARLY talking about the Afghan War, which she doesn't feel we should pull out of..

She was "Clearly" talking about "wars."

A-stan might be one, but CLEARLY, she's simply stating the obvious: Losing wars is Bad.

 

[LiberalNut]

I've read it all and can comprehend it

Then please comprehend that your notions of what is and isn't included in the powers of Congress, or at least what you've said about that, is complete bullshit. The Congress can pass laws to promote the general welfare any way it sees fit and it would be up the the courts, not you or me, as to whether Congress has acted in pursuance of the Contitution. To date, none of the stuff you've said doesn't fall under the powers of Congress has actually been struck down by a court. Therefore, your notions on what is and isn't a power of Congress are WRONG.

 

[sangha]

Keeping the midterm-campaign promise would require a Republican-led Congress to cut 21 percent of the $477 billion lawmakers have earmarked for domestic discretionary spending.

“That’s where you get the savings,” said Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who would likely be chairman of the Budget Committee if his party regained its majority in the Nov. 2 elections.

This article is over a month old. Has anyone heard any updates on where the GOP plans to cut $100 BILLION in spending? Is the Defense budget even on the radar?

Republican Pledge to Cut $100 Billion May Hit Education, Cancer Research - Bloomberg

Depends on who you talk to.

some say madicare, SS, and DoD are safe, some say there will be across the board cuts.

Personnally, I'm all for across the board cuts except for medicare and SS. Can't leave the seniors hanging like that.

Wingnuts think they can cut the interest payments on all the debt we incurred under republican presidents

 

[Samson]

Well I'll be damned. I need some new shoes. What government agency is in charge of that aspect of promoting the general welfare?

Get a Dr to perscribe orthopedic corrective footwear and get them through medicaid.


or

Join the Army


or

Commit a Federal Crime

 

[sangha]

Neither are within the Article 1, Section 8 scope of congressional power.

You're a fucking moron who wouldn't know the constitution if it bit him on the ass. Fromn article 1 sec. 8...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That pretty much covers every friggin' public spending law that Congress could pass doesn't it shit for brains? You don't love the Constitution. You love some lie about the constitution that has been force fed into your inadaquate brain.

In your not so informed opinion, yes. Then there's reality....

Promoting the general welfare for you progressive trolls is like the damned Commerce Clause... it means whatever you want it to mean insofar as it helps you achieve your ever reaching goals.

We don't all embrace your statist views there Sparky.

Speak for yourself: I'm pretty sure our Forefathers would approve of Government Sponsored Brothels filled with "Comfort Women" as part of our general welfare.

Wingnuts think "General Welfare" means "balance the budget and reduce spending by cutting taxes"

Pages of posts, and not one wingnut can identify one program to cut.

 

[LiberalNut]

"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

 

[sangha]

I think comfy and affordable footwear is a necessary component of anyone's life...

Good for you. So now you should petition the government to pass a law that would provide everyone shoes. You see, it's called representative democracy. The Congress, responding to the will of the people theoretically, passes laws to promote the general welfare. A minority of wingnuts don't get to say that Acts of Congress aren't in the General Welfare or are somehow unconstitutional because...er...they say so.

In an earlier thread, all these wingnuts were arguing about how wrong it was for a court to strike down a law as unconstitutional. "They're going against the will of the people!!" the wingnuts cried.

Wingnuts are all for majority rule (when they have the majority) and oppose it (when they don't)

 

[sangha]

"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

Cuts "across the board" are a lie. You can't cut our interest payments for the debt incurred under republican presidents

 

[Mr Natural]

What exactly does "General Welfare"

It's a very broad statement, and since none of the founders are around to explain what they meant, it's up to us to interpret.

For me, it means the federal government has the authority to prevent things from going to shit.

 

[Samson]

"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

Cuts "across the board" are a lie. You can't cut our interest payments for the debt incurred under republican presidents

Yes, Captain Obvious.

We're talking about portions of the federal government that CAN be cut.


Shouldn't you be getting ready for 6th period P.E. or something...