Why is the GOP the party of no?

[KevinWestern]

Govt is too big.

As already correctly noted, this is an inane and meaningless phrase.

I dunno Clayton, perhaps the phrase is vague and general but Gov't can most definitely be "too big".

What do you call it when we have 50 gov't workers inefficiently doing the work that 20 could do in the private sector? Isn't there some room to trim?

What do you call it when we have companies lobbying and creating legislation and "regulations" that inefficiently favor big business, ect? Isn't there some room to trim?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Now is a time that we need to borrow and spend. Interstate rates are so low that it is a no brainer. Borrow..........spend on infrastructure and education........bolster the economy while investing in the future.

And....why not eliminate the cap on payroll taxes and reduce the amount to 4%. Then we could expand Social Security....lower the retirement age and increase Medicare enrollment.

Yes dummies ...........we need to spend more.

What is Interstate rates? frieght rates? what does that have anything to do with it? Come on wonder boy were you not just making fun of my spelling a few days ago? lol..

 

[deltex1]

When you say "NO" you don't get fugged by someone who could care less about you...you don't get pregnant, and you don't end up killing your baby...there is an analogy there somewhere...no is good.

 

[Caroljo]

Why is the GOP the party of "No"?
Because they don't have any ideas of their own except tax cuts for the rich. It isn't because government is too big. Heck, they gave us a huge increase in government with the DHS and TSA. It isn't about spending because they love to spend money too. It isn't about deficits because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." What it is, is that a Democrat is President. They can't accept that and move forward with the will of the people and the good of the country. They have to say no to absolutely everything, even if those things were originally proposed by Republicans. If Obama is for it, they're against it.

Waaaaaaa.........

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now is a time that we need to borrow and spend. Interstate rates are so low that it is a no brainer. Borrow..........spend on infrastructure and education........bolster the economy while investing in the future.

And....why not eliminate the cap on payroll taxes and reduce the amount to 4%. Then we could expand Social Security....lower the retirement age and increase Medicare enrollment.

Yes dummies ...........we need to spend more.

What is Interstate rates? frieght rates? what does that have anything to do with it? Come on wonder boy were you not just making fun of my spelling a few days ago? lol..

Auto-correct typo......idiot.

I don't **** with a person's typos. I **** with their inability to use the language. If you cannot spell simple words......find a new hobby. A message board might not be for you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You can not see this message because lone laugher is on ignore for being a hypocrite.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Earmuffs, *****.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Simple
Govt is too big. The dems put forth a budget that does nothing to cut spending and attaches tax increases and then expects the GOP to negotiate
What would a bi partisan bill look like? 100% tax reform. The maybe you could get the GOP to look at spending increases. BTW spending over 3 trillion and cutting the growth from 5% to whatever is below that is not a cut
increase year to year spending higher than inflation is an increase, plain and simple

Because they don't have unified power in DC anymore. This isn't complicated. When they had the WH and Congress, they were the party of Medicare D, Nation Building, Deficits & Debt. They said yes to it all. It's all their fault.

 

[JRK]

Why is the GOP the party of "No"?
Because they don't have any ideas of their own except tax cuts for the rich. It isn't because government is too big. Heck, they gave us a huge increase in government with the DHS and TSA. It isn't about spending because they love to spend money too. It isn't about deficits because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." What it is, is that a Democrat is President. They can't accept that and move forward with the will of the people and the good of the country. They have to say no to absolutely everything, even if those things were originally proposed by Republicans. If Obama is for it, they're against it.

I'm sure the Republicans do a lot of things to protect their rich donors, but I think it's just slightly naive to assume that the Democrats aren't doing the exact same thing.

Ask yourself, why would Obama (in his second term) sign a piece of legislation that protects Monsanto from any legal action resulting from health issues, ect caused by their products? Why would Obama appoint a Monsanto exec to a top spot in the FDA, as if there's "no conflict of interests" that would exist in that scenario. How many bankers has Obama put behind bars in the past 5 years despite the fraud that crashed our economy putting MILLIONS and MILLIONS out of work (including many family and friends I know)? The answer's pretty easy to remember: zero.

The Dems are funded by (many) of the same powerful, rich entities as the Republicans, and you'd be a fool to not acknowledge this.


.

The fraud in our banking system occured at the level of your local bank and grew from there.
All who where greedy should be in jail including those who got those loans with lies.

Simply put it is against the law to gai wealth from fraud or to loan the same through fraud

 

[JRK]

Simple
Govt is too big. The dems put forth a budget that does nothing to cut spending and attaches tax increases and then expects the GOP to negotiate
What would a bi partisan bill look like? 100% tax reform. The maybe you could get the GOP to look at spending increases. BTW spending over 3 trillion and cutting the growth from 5% to whatever is below that is not a cut
increase year to year spending higher than inflation is an increase, plain and simple

Because they don't have unified power in DC anymore. This isn't complicated. When they had the WH and Congress, they were the party of Medicare D, Nation Building, Deficits & Debt. They said yes to it all. It's all their fault.

Medicare D should have had some kind of funding
Deficts?
2007 we had 162 billion, the last GOP budget
2009 we had 1.4 trillion, the second DEM budget with Obama adding another 500 billion to GWB base-line
Nation building? ridding the world of 2 very dangerous regimes is survival that the Dems voted for also on both accounts. no Saddam, no UBL, there are no wars

 

[kwc57]

Her plan would raise $975 billion in new revenue in the next decade by closing tax breaks that benefit upper-income households and corporations. Democrats plan to match the new taxes with $975 billion in spending reductions. They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest

Democrats' Budget Mixes Tax Increases, Spending Cuts - WSJ.com

Would that be reductions in current level in spending or reductions in the future growth of spending? See, that's the trick they like the to pull. They cut from projected spending growth then claim they cut spending, yet somehow the budget mysteriously still ends up being larger than the prior year.

Liberals never consider the details....because they trust that the nanny state is good and looking out for people.

 

[JRK]

Govt is too big.

As already correctly noted, this is an inane and meaningless phrase.

I dunno Clayton, perhaps the phrase is vague and general but Gov't can most definitely be "too big".

What do you call it when we have 50 gov't workers inefficiently doing the work that 20 could do in the private sector? Isn't there some room to trim?

What do you call it when we have companies lobbying and creating legislation and "regulations" that inefficiently favor big business, ect? Isn't there some room to trim?

.

with 2 wars in 2007 we spent 2.7 trillion
by 2009 after BHO added his 500 billion we were at 3.5 trillion and he has fought to keep that level going higher each year
adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget in 5 years is to much/to big/to fast
Iraq war is over
GM and GMAC got there 80 billion and all of the TARP GWB used has been paid back
Not the tarp they used (GM and GMAC) for example

 

[kwc57]

The teepubs have said it right out loud - 'compromise means doing it their way'.

And, a little reminder -

We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back. - B Obama

I won. - B Obama

 

[JRK]

The teepubs have said it right out loud - 'compromise means doing it their way'.

And, a little reminder -

this was done in the time of 9-11 and 2 wars
what is the reason BHO needs to do this?
GWB had a defict avg of 250-300 billion with 2 wars
BHO has an avg of 1.2 trillion with 1 war

Is that on your list?

And your dam right, compromise is doing it the right way
eliminate the IRS eliminates your loop holes