Seriously, what's wrong with Jon Huntsman?

[Flopper]

But those things existed at a time when both parties agreed government is the solution, not the problem. It wasn't an argument about whether the government should do something, but what the best way to do it was.

Today, the GOP, or a least a large part of it, has concluded government is the problem. It's too big, to intrusive, passes too many regulations that even their own bureaucrats don't know what it is. And to a degree, they are right. The democrats want to keep expanding government even though the tax revenues aren't their to support what they are doing now.

Too many people riding in the wagon, not enough people pulling it... that's the problem.

The problem is you can not significantly reduce the size of government unilaterally. If the GOP attempts to do that, they will have to cut into programs that the public supports. That's going to be very hard but with Democrats telling them there is a better alternative, it will be impossible. No, the only way out of the economic mess we are in is bipartisan support. Until that happens, there will be little done to solve the deficit problem.

OH, bullshit. If the GOP gets the presidency, the House and a large enough majority in the senate, we can make the changes... Whether we will or not is another matter. The GOP has this bad habit of suddenly loving government when they are in charge of it.

If the GOP captured all 3 house of government and tried to make significant unilateral cuts, there would be a backlash and they would loose at midterm because they do not have the support of the people. The public does not support cuts in the two biggest programs, Medicare and Social Security. The EPA has strong public support. The GOP is about as likely to make big cuts in defense spending as they are to support pro-choice.

Until the American people are willing to make sacrifices needed for deficit reduction, any efforts will be short lived. It will take both parties to get long lasting deficit reduction.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past.

That's because they were all socialists then, even the Republicans.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is you can not significantly reduce the size of government unilaterally. If the GOP attempts to do that, they will have to cut into programs that the public supports. That's going to be very hard but with Democrats telling them there is a better alternative, it will be impossible. No, the only way out of the economic mess we are in is bipartisan support. Until that happens, there will be little done to solve the deficit problem.

So as long at the Democrats believe in socialism, the government will never be cut. Thanks for admitting who is responsible for the deficit problem.

 

[bripat9643]

If the GOP captured all 3 house of government and tried to make significant unilateral cuts, there would be a backlash and they would loose at midterm because they do not have the support of the people. The public does not support cuts in the two biggest programs, Medicare and Social Security. The EPA has strong public support. The GOP is about as likely to make big cuts in defense spending as they are to support pro-choice.

Until the American people are willing to make sacrifices needed for deficit reduction, any efforts will be short lived. It will take both parties to get long lasting deficit reduction.

That remains to be seen. I doubt people are going to support the EPA when their utility bill quadruples.

Furthermore, the taxpayers have been making massive sacrifices for decades. Only the ticks on the ass of society haven't been asked to make sacrifices. It's their turn.

 

[jillian]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

he's smart and might not make half the country vomit.

that disqualifies him since it doesn't show adequate contempt for either the "other side" or the federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

The GOP may sweep everything next year but they're not going to win 60 seats in the Senate.

So yes, there will need to be a bi-partisan solution.

Why do Democrats always start screaming about "bipartisanship" whenever they lose control of the government?

The last thing this country needs is Democrats having a hand in the decision making process. Their "contributions" are the reason this country is so screwed up now.

 

[jillian]

The GOP may sweep everything next year but they're not going to win 60 seats in the Senate.

So yes, there will need to be a bi-partisan solution.

Why do Democrats always start screaming about "bipartisanship" whenever they lose control of the government?

The last thing this country needs is Democrats having a hand in the decision making process. The "contributions" are the reason this country is so screwed up now.

they don't loser... it's freaks like you who shrieked "ihopehefails" from day one.

now shut up and go back to mommy's basement.

 

[JoeB131]

If the GOP captured all 3 house of government and tried to make significant unilateral cuts, there would be a backlash and they would loose at midterm because they do not have the support of the people. The public does not support cuts in the two biggest programs, Medicare and Social Security. The EPA has strong public support. The GOP is about as likely to make big cuts in defense spending as they are to support pro-choice.

Until the American people are willing to make sacrifices needed for deficit reduction, any efforts will be short lived. It will take both parties to get long lasting deficit reduction.

Guy, I'm a realist. If a republican wins and takes both houses of Congress, he's going to take a hit in the midterms REGARDLESS of what policies he puts into place. it's just that simple. going to happen.

So you really have to treat your first two years as the only chance you have to make any real change. Reagan understood this. Clinton understood this. Obama clearly didn't.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do Democrats always start screaming about "bipartisanship" whenever they lose control of the government?

The last thing this country needs is Democrats having a hand in the decision making process. The "contributions" are the reason this country is so screwed up now.

they don't loser... it's freaks like you who shrieked "ihopehefails" from day one.

Yes they do, dingbat. That's the first thing they started whining about when Bush got elected.

now shut up and go back to mommy's basement.

libturds just can't stand the idea that other people can dispute their idiocies, can they?

 

[bripat9643]

Guy, I'm a realist. If a republican wins and takes both houses of Congress, he's going to take a hit in the midterms REGARDLESS of what policies he puts into place. it's just that simple. going to happen.

So you really have to treat your first two years as the only chance you have to make any real change. Reagan understood this. Clinton understood this. Obama clearly didn't.

I think he did understand it. The problem was that all his changes were colossal failures.

 

[richstacy]

The fact that you like him is sufficient cause for denying him the nomination.

He's a RINO who believes in the global warming hocus-pocus.

enough said.

So believing what nearly every credible scientist says is definitely happening makes one a RINO? THAT explains a lot.

enough said

If the science backs it up, why do they keep having to fabricate data?

Why argue about something that no one really knows the answer to?? It seems clear there is some global warming. Whether it is caused by man is absolutely not clear.

 

[jillian]

So believing what nearly every credible scientist says is definitely happening makes one a RINO? THAT explains a lot.

enough said

If the science backs it up, why do they keep having to fabricate data?

Why argue about something that no one really knows the answer to?? It seems clear there is some global warming. Whether it is caused by man is absolutely not clear.

except that it is clear....

except to people who choose to lie about it.

 

[JimH52]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

he's smart and might not make half the country vomit.

that disqualifies him since it doesn't show adequate contempt for either the "other side" or the federal government.

He actually would have a chance of beating Obama. That rules him out for the GOP. They are looking for the extreme candidate that can carry the Bachmann/Rush crown. On other words, they want someone that is nuts.

 

[bripat9643]

except that it is clear....

except to people who choose to lie about it.

It's also clear to those same people that Bush ordered the destruction of the World Trade Center.

There's no shortage of idiocies that a majority of Americans believe in.

 

[jillian]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

he's smart and might not make half the country vomit.

that disqualifies him since it doesn't show adequate contempt for either the "other side" or the federal government.

He actually would have a chance of beating Obama. That rules him out for the GOP. They are looking for the extreme candidate that can carry the Bachmann/Rush crown. On other words, they want someone that is nuts.

well, certainly intellect isn't something the far rightwingnut "base" is looking for. and they don't want anyone they think might actually get something done without ramming it down the throats of dems.

so there ya go.

 

[Meister]

If the science backs it up, why do they keep having to fabricate data?

Why argue about something that no one really knows the answer to?? It seems clear there is some global warming. Whether it is caused by man is absolutely not clear.

except that it is clear....

except to people who choose to lie about it.

No it's not. Why the lost papers from Hanson, and the why the suspicious emails?

 

[Mad Scientist]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

If Ted Kennedy would have taken a position in the Bush administration you'd have been suspicious right?

Right.

 

[Meister]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

George Soros is an honorable American patriot to you....need I say more?

 

[elvis]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

George Soros is an honorable American patriot to you....need I say more?

He loves Van Jones. You know.. the communist 9/11 truther.

 

[Flopper]

If the GOP captured all 3 house of government and tried to make significant unilateral cuts, there would be a backlash and they would loose at midterm because they do not have the support of the people. The public does not support cuts in the two biggest programs, Medicare and Social Security. The EPA has strong public support. The GOP is about as likely to make big cuts in defense spending as they are to support pro-choice.

Until the American people are willing to make sacrifices needed for deficit reduction, any efforts will be short lived. It will take both parties to get long lasting deficit reduction.

Guy, I'm a realist. If a republican wins and takes both houses of Congress, he's going to take a hit in the midterms REGARDLESS of what policies he puts into place. it's just that simple. going to happen.

So you really have to treat your first two years as the only chance you have to make any real change. Reagan understood this. Clinton understood this. Obama clearly didn't.

The basic problem is not the Democrats. It's the American people. They want what big government provides, healthcare for seniors, Social Security, a strong military, clean air, clean water, public education, consumer protection, a host of other government services, and low taxes. If this was not the case, we would not have 50 years of increasing debt.

It should be quite clear from our history, neither party will control government for very long. 60% of the time power is shared between the two. With the polarization that exists today, any deep cuts, if any made by the GOP will be wiped out when Democrats gain control. Until the two parties can find workable compromises nothing will change.