Where are these government-slashing Republicans I keep hearing about?

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Aug 16, 2009
19,744
2,473
280
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Two weeks ago The New York Times reported that Republicans "want a vastly smaller government." Last week the Times called the dispute about raising the federal debt ceiling "an epic clash over the parties' divergent views on the size and role of the federal government." This week it said President Obama faces "a conservative movement seeking a wholesale redefinition of the proper role of government."

The recent debt deal, widely portrayed as a victory for Republicans, suggests their goals are decidedly less ambitious. As always in Washington, the "epic clash" perceived by the Times is in fact a squabble between two parties that both favor big government.

The debt deal, which authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes, supposedly includes "$2.5 trillion in cuts." But as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) emphasizes, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade, which means "the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years."


Kinda Cuts - Reason Magazine

.
 
Two weeks ago The New York Times reported that Republicans "want a vastly smaller government." Last week the Times called the dispute about raising the federal debt ceiling "an epic clash over the parties' divergent views on the size and role of the federal government." This week it said President Obama faces "a conservative movement seeking a wholesale redefinition of the proper role of government."

The recent debt deal, widely portrayed as a victory for Republicans, suggests their goals are decidedly less ambitious. As always in Washington, the "epic clash" perceived by the Times is in fact a squabble between two parties that both favor big government.

The debt deal, which authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes, supposedly includes "$2.5 trillion in cuts." But as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) emphasizes, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade, which means "the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years."


Kinda Cuts - Reason Magazine

.

If you had bothered to look at the no votes on the deal you would see those nasty tea party people voted no as the real deals were continually nixed by democrats.

So you had a minority fighting the establishment of democrats and republicans willing to play along with democrats. The award for their bravery was to be called terrorists and racists.
 
Two weeks ago The New York Times reported that Republicans "want a vastly smaller government." Last week the Times called the dispute about raising the federal debt ceiling "an epic clash over the parties' divergent views on the size and role of the federal government." This week it said President Obama faces "a conservative movement seeking a wholesale redefinition of the proper role of government."

The recent debt deal, widely portrayed as a victory for Republicans, suggests their goals are decidedly less ambitious. As always in Washington, the "epic clash" perceived by the Times is in fact a squabble between two parties that both favor big government.

The debt deal, which authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes, supposedly includes "$2.5 trillion in cuts." But as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) emphasizes, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade, which means "the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years."


Kinda Cuts - Reason Magazine

.
The Tea Party hasn't gotten into the GOP leadership yet. Once they do, then you'll start to see radical changes in how the GOP operates, and probably a sea change in this nation politically, for the better as government is put on fiscal gastric bypass
 
The majority of the Tea Party Caucus voted for the deal.

The Tea Party Folded. Straight up. IMO there done, at least as part of the Republican Party.

How do you figure that?

It's just how I feel.

They Caved. We needed Deeper cuts, and to address entitlements. The Credit Rating people had made that pretty clear.

Plus they allowed the next debate to be Pushed past the next election. Which is a Huge ass plus for Obama.

So IMO they failed miserably. I still give them credit for turning the Debate from How much can we spend, to how do we cut spending, But I think they are doomed to fail in the Republican Party. Which is really Morphed into just another Big Government Party.
 
Two weeks ago The New York Times reported that Republicans "want a vastly smaller government." Last week the Times called the dispute about raising the federal debt ceiling "an epic clash over the parties' divergent views on the size and role of the federal government." This week it said President Obama faces "a conservative movement seeking a wholesale redefinition of the proper role of government."

The recent debt deal, widely portrayed as a victory for Republicans, suggests their goals are decidedly less ambitious. As always in Washington, the "epic clash" perceived by the Times is in fact a squabble between two parties that both favor big government.

The debt deal, which authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes, supposedly includes "$2.5 trillion in cuts." But as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) emphasizes, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade, which means "the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years."


Kinda Cuts - Reason Magazine

.

If you had bothered to look at the no votes on the deal you would see those nasty tea party people voted no as the real deals were continually nixed by democrats.

So you had a minority fighting the establishment of democrats and republicans willing to play along with democrats. The award for their bravery was to be called terrorists and racists.
Was one of those "real deals" Lyin' Ryan's budget????
 
The Tea Party Folded. Straight up. IMO there done, at least as part of the Republican Party.

How do you figure that?

It's just how I feel.

They Caved. We needed Deeper cuts, and to address entitlements. The Credit Rating people had made that pretty clear.

Plus they allowed the next debate to be Pushed past the next election. Which is a Huge ass plus for Obama.

So IMO they failed miserably. I still give them credit for turning the Debate from How much can we spend, to how do we cut spending, But I think they are doomed to fail in the Republican Party. Which is really Morphed into just another Big Government Party.
Actually the credit people said that Republicans that were unwilling to listen to reason were the reason the credit rating was lowered.

Here is what they said:

But that doesn't mean we should ignore S&P's Friday evening shot across the bow. In downgrading the U.S.'s credit rating, S&P points out what has long been obvious: Washington's inability to come to an agreement on how to close the large fiscal gaps that have emerged since the recession began is troubling. Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.

..............

But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable.
 
Where are these government-slashing Republicans I keep hearing about?

The same place the "Protecting the working class" DEMS are....

out of power.
 
Actually the credit people said that Republicans that were unwilling to listen to reason were the reason the credit rating was lowered.

No they didn't, nitwit.

Here is what they said:

But that doesn't mean we should ignore S&P's Friday evening shot across the bow. In downgrading the U.S.'s credit rating, S&P points out what has long been obvious: Washington's inability to come to an agreement on how to close the large fiscal gaps that have emerged since the recession began is troubling. Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.

..............

But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable.

You're quoting some Leftwing pundit, not S&P.

You do understand that some the opinion of some A-hole who hates Republicans does not constitute proof of anything, don't you?

No, of course you don't. You wouldn't have posted it if you did.
 
If you had bothered to look at the no votes on the deal you would see those nasty tea party people voted no as the real deals were continually nixed by democrats.

The majority of the Tea Party Caucus voted for the deal.

The Tea Party Folded. Straight up. IMO there done, at least as part of the Republican Party.
Now now, Charles. It didn't fold. It was outgunned and went down like the Bataan Defenders. They had one major success though, that most people haven't recognized but Washington sure has:

They dragged the conversation and legislation HARD right before they were sold out by McConnell/Boner and left the dregs by Reid and Obama. If not for them kicking and screaming all the way, this debt ceiling would never have been an issue. Concessions for cutting the budget would not have even been addressed because NOBODY in the room would have tried to upset 'business as usual'.

The tea party did not get a victory, much like the Continental Army did not get a victory at Bunker Hill. But it was a battle that helped shape all future engagements of the war and demoralize the enemy.

Like it or not, this was the big government advocate's "Tet Offensive". They may have won the day, but they lost very key support of the people at large.
 
Two weeks ago The New York Times reported that Republicans "want a vastly smaller government." Last week the Times called the dispute about raising the federal debt ceiling "an epic clash over the parties' divergent views on the size and role of the federal government." This week it said President Obama faces "a conservative movement seeking a wholesale redefinition of the proper role of government."

The recent debt deal, widely portrayed as a victory for Republicans, suggests their goals are decidedly less ambitious. As always in Washington, the "epic clash" perceived by the Times is in fact a squabble between two parties that both favor big government.

The debt deal, which authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes, supposedly includes "$2.5 trillion in cuts." But as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) emphasizes, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade, which means "the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years."


Kinda Cuts - Reason Magazine

.

Ohh those republicans? They are already in heaven. All 14 of them.
 
The Tea Party Folded. Straight up. IMO there done, at least as part of the Republican Party.

How do you figure that?

It's just how I feel.

They Caved. We needed Deeper cuts, and to address entitlements. The Credit Rating people had made that pretty clear.

Plus they allowed the next debate to be Pushed past the next election. Which is a Huge ass plus for Obama.

So IMO they failed miserably. I still give them credit for turning the Debate from How much can we spend, to how do we cut spending, But I think they are doomed to fail in the Republican Party. Which is really Morphed into just another Big Government Party.

I dont understand that. They stuck to their guns. There are only 60 of them man.

Patience, I would add an analogy of readying the ropes. But you know how the left reacts.

BUTT HURT at every opportunity.
 
How do you figure that?

It's just how I feel.

They Caved. We needed Deeper cuts, and to address entitlements. The Credit Rating people had made that pretty clear.

Plus they allowed the next debate to be Pushed past the next election. Which is a Huge ass plus for Obama.

So IMO they failed miserably. I still give them credit for turning the Debate from How much can we spend, to how do we cut spending, But I think they are doomed to fail in the Republican Party. Which is really Morphed into just another Big Government Party.
Actually the credit people said that Republicans that were unwilling to listen to reason were the reason the credit rating was lowered.

Here is what they said:

But that doesn't mean we should ignore S&P's Friday evening shot across the bow. In downgrading the U.S.'s credit rating, S&P points out what has long been obvious: Washington's inability to come to an agreement on how to close the large fiscal gaps that have emerged since the recession began is troubling. Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.

..............

But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable.

People like you make me laugh. We just got downgraded because S&P wanted us to cut our deficit by 4 trillion and we didn't come close to that. So how is it that Congressional Republicans who were calling for more cuts to spending "deserve much more of the blame"?

The fact is...the rating agencies couldn't care less HOW we cut deficits...whether it's done with massive tax increases...done with massive spending cuts...or done with a combination of the two. What they DO care about is that the deficit is cut because our debt level is unsustainable.

We need to reform entitlements since they are the overwhelming source of our deficit. That isn't happening however because entitlements were deemed "untouchable" by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So tell me again how the Republicans deserve much more of the blame when they are the only ones willing to talk about fixing the real source of the problem.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top