Will GOP cut spending or not?

[bripat9643]

So the RW keeps putting up BS bills for the dupes while blocking jobs bills they've always been for in the past? A disgrace.

"Jobs bill" is a Democrat euphemism meaning "dispensing cash to favored constituents."

 

[bripat9643]

We keep telling you that voting for either party isn't going to change much. The special interests,lobbies, corps all too intertwined with our government now. Bills are combined with other bills to get them to pass.

If its not entitlements which the right are really for,but not publically, or the military nothing will really get cut. Well except those few real social welfare programs that really impact people.

That's why you vote for tea party candidates who believe in smaller government and destruction of the beltway system.

No, because they are too stupid and extreme

Yeah, they actualy want to cut spending. How "extreme!"

 

[bripat9643]

Probably not but we already know Obama and the Democrats wont so what is the choice vote for the probably wont cut spending or the definitely wont cut spending.

Sounds like a pointless choice to me.

Pretty much is everyone knows you can't get out of this mess without both big spending cuts and tax increases but no one has the courage to say this much less do it.

Horseshit. Tax increases are the last thing we need. The idea that the federal government doesn't have enough revenue is absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

Most know me as a fiscal conservative…

Which unfortunately often results in fiscal irresponsibility. Blind adherence to a particular fiscal ideology can be at least problematic, as a pragmatic course is usually best.

everyone else's adherence is always "blind" in the eyes of those who disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

Which unfortunately often results in fiscal irresponsibility. Blind adherence to a particular fiscal ideology can be at least problematic, as a pragmatic course is usually best.

Fiscal irresponsibility is not confined to one party. And there are those from both sides who are blindly adhering to a specific fiscal ideology. Some say we should balance the budget immediately, others say we should spend trillions more in stimulus. Is it right to say those who disagree from your position on fiscal matters are blindly adhering to their economic worldview?

Spending more now doesn't have to be fiscal irresponsible, as long as it's coupled with cuts further out.

"cuts further out" never happen. That's the whole point of voting for them. It's like saying "the checks in the mail."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another story from downsizinggovernment.org, they're kind of an offshoot from CATO. There was an amendment introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) to eliminate funding for the Economic Development Administration. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a vote of 129-279. All 175 Democrats voting joined 104 Republicans in keeping the EDA alive. We're talking about a subsidy program from the 1960s here that is essentially worthless, another bureaucracy.

You say it's a worthless subsidy but don't explain what it is or provide examples of its worthlessness.

" Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), for example, voted against the Pompeo amendment. But in a column she penned in April, Noem said “Our debt crisis is a result of Washington spending money it doesn’t have and letting our children and grandchildren pick up the tab.” Noem favors a Balance Budget Amendment and says that “Our government must come together and make the tough decisions to secure our nation’s prosperous future.” Really? Noem says tough decisions need to be made but she can’t even get behind the elimination of the EDA.

Noem and 85 other Republicans also voted against Rep. Ben Quayle’s (R-AZ) amendment that would have defunded a new corporate welfare program asked for by President Obama in his fiscal 2013 budget proposal. Thanks to the 86 Republicans in the House, instead of terminating programs, taxpayers will get a new one called the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program. "

Republicans Help Save the Economic Development Administration | Downsizing the Federal Government

We're not talking big dollar savings here, but we gotta start somewhere. Will a Romney admin make a difference, assuming he's elected and the House remains under repub control? Color me disappointed.

The Republcan Party and its surrogates characterize Democrats as the party of Tax and Spend. Isn't don't tax and spend a greater threat to our fiscal health?

President Clinton had for a brief time the authority to use the line item veto, something many state government constitutions allow. The USSC ruled this authorty to be unlawful (Clinton v. City of New York, 1968).

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it time to revisit this idea and allow the next President to control the spending of a Congress which seems unable to control itself?

Economic Development Administration | Downsizing the Federal Government

This is a link to a website that details what this agency does. It ain't big bucks, but I do think it's worthless.

I would't raise taxes at all in a time like this; maybe I could see it if and when the economy gets going, but not now. Neither would I raise gov't spending, their track record over Obama and Bush's tenures has not been close to good when it comes to effective and efficient use of gov't funds. I would however begin a gradual reduction, along with a reform of our tax code and entitlement programs. We need a plan and right now we ain't got one.

I'd be for the line item veto, I liked it the 1st time. Not sure why the SCOTUS would change their minds on it tho.

I think I'll start a thread with a poll on who supports or not the Line-Item Veto for the POTUS. I'd hoped to see others opinions on this issue but this thread has been spammed.

 

[Staidhup]

They don't have a choice, cut or collapse.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They don't have a choice, cut or collapse.

Cut what?

 

[Big Fitz]

How about everything not covered under explicit federal spending in the constitution. Let the rest revert to the states and THEY decide what they want.

 

[The T]

How about everything not covered under explicit federal spending in the constitution. Let the rest revert to the states and THEY decide what they want.

All for it.

Let the chips fall...

 

[rdean]

Will GOP cut spending or not?

Yes and no.

They will cut school lunches, help for the poor, food stamps for children, Medicare, Social Security.

But they will offset that with tax cuts for billionaires and subsidies for corporations.

How do we know? They tell us. I believe 'em.

 

[Polk]

Another story from downsizinggovernment.org, they're kind of an offshoot from CATO. There was an amendment introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) to eliminate funding for the Economic Development Administration. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a vote of 129-279. All 175 Democrats voting joined 104 Republicans in keeping the EDA alive. We're talking about a subsidy program from the 1960s here that is essentially worthless, another bureaucracy.

You say it's a worthless subsidy but don't explain what it is or provide examples of its worthlessness.

" Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), for example, voted against the Pompeo amendment. But in a column she penned in April, Noem said “Our debt crisis is a result of Washington spending money it doesn’t have and letting our children and grandchildren pick up the tab.” Noem favors a Balance Budget Amendment and says that “Our government must come together and make the tough decisions to secure our nation’s prosperous future.” Really? Noem says tough decisions need to be made but she can’t even get behind the elimination of the EDA.

Noem and 85 other Republicans also voted against Rep. Ben Quayle’s (R-AZ) amendment that would have defunded a new corporate welfare program asked for by President Obama in his fiscal 2013 budget proposal. Thanks to the 86 Republicans in the House, instead of terminating programs, taxpayers will get a new one called the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program. "

Republicans Help Save the Economic Development Administration | Downsizing the Federal Government

We're not talking big dollar savings here, but we gotta start somewhere. Will a Romney admin make a difference, assuming he's elected and the House remains under repub control? Color me disappointed.

The Republcan Party and its surrogates characterize Democrats as the party of Tax and Spend. Isn't don't tax and spend a greater threat to our fiscal health?

President Clinton had for a brief time the authority to use the line item veto, something many state government constitutions allow. The USSC ruled this authorty to be unlawful (Clinton v. City of New York, 1968).

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it time to revisit this idea and allow the next President to control the spending of a Congress which seems unable to control itself?

That case was wrongly decided anyway. Scalia and Breyer's dissents are much more compelling than the majority ruling.

 

[Polk]

Fiscal irresponsibility is not confined to one party. And there are those from both sides who are blindly adhering to a specific fiscal ideology. Some say we should balance the budget immediately, others say we should spend trillions more in stimulus. Is it right to say those who disagree from your position on fiscal matters are blindly adhering to their economic worldview?

Spending more now doesn't have to be fiscal irresponsible, as long as it's coupled with cuts further out.

"cuts further out" never happen. That's the whole point of voting for them. It's like saying "the checks in the mail."

If you really believe that, then there's no point in doing anything. Every plan on the table, including the most far-right ones, don't balance the budget overnight.