More Republican Party hilarity...

[Kimiko]

Now it appears that the Republican promise to cut $100 billion from the budget this year was only "hypothetical". Uh-huh....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._01/027383.php

HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO BREAK KEY PROMISE ON DAY 1.... When House Republican leaders unveiled their Pledge to America in September, it included a pretty striking promise to voters -- if elected, the GOP majority would "roll back government spending" by "at least $100 billion in the first year alone."
By all accounts, the figure was entirely arbitrary. It's not as if Republicans identified $100 billion in unnecessary spending and vowed to eliminate it, or identified some specific policy benefit associated with these cuts. The capricious goal was chosen because it was a round number. They thought it sounded nice, and voters would be impressed.
Regardless, GOP leaders touted the figure incessantly throughout the campaign season, and kept pushing it in the lead up to the new Congress. Indeed, as recently as last week, party leaders were not only sticking to the $100 billion figure, they insisted that they would make the cuts without touching defense, Social Security, or Medicare.
Even after being confronted with evidence that such a goal would necessitate devastating cuts to education, health care, law enforcement, and transportation, House Republicans said they didn't care. After all, they said, a promise is a promise, and this is a priority the GOP is willing to fight for.
Or rather, it was.
Monday, Republicans started slowly backing away from their $100 billion commitment. Yesterday, the pledge was effectively thrown out the window.

Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree. [...]
Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.

Oh, I see. Republican pledges are "hypothetical" promises. The Pledge to America must have included asterisks and disclaimers in font so small, the country missed the caveats.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, said, "I think they woke up to the reality that this will have a direct negative impact on people's lives.... You know, it's easy to talk about these things in the abstract. It's another thing when you start taking away people's college loans and Pell Grants or cutting early education programs."
To be sure, I'm delighted Republicans aren't actually going to pursue this indefensible goal. When political leaders start breaking high-profile promises right out of the gate, it's generally not a positive development, but in this case, we're all better off with GOP leaders having changed their minds.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Republicans never should have made this promise to begin with, and shouldn't have put themselves in a position in which they're breaking their own pledge immediately after taking office.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Now it appears that the Republican promise to cut $100 billion from the budget this year was only "hypothetical". Uh-huh....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._01/027383.php

Why are you so surprised, they promised Obama that they would follow his lead, he was very good at making hypothetical campaign promises.

[umpire2]

"Please buy my book to make me richer (you fucking fools...)"

4cd1ff719cd97.jpg

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Why are you so surprised, they promised Obama that they would follow his lead, he was very good at making hypothetical campaign promises.

I'm not surprised.

[Distant Lover]

Republican politicians are going to discover what they discovered after the elections of 1980 and 2000: it is not possible to cut government spending without cutting or eliminating programs most Republican voters will insist on keeping.

Rank and file Republican voters seem to think the government does not do much besides take tax money from hard working whites and give it to lazy, shiftless blacks. Nevertheless, we can eliminate the entire welfare budget and still have the need to cut popular spending programs. It is disgusting to have to go through this charade every one or two decades.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Republican politicians are going to discover what they discovered after the elections of 1980 and 2000: it is not possible to cut government spending without cutting or eliminating programs most Republican voters will insist on keeping.

Rank and file Republican voters seem to think the government does not do much besides take tax money from hard working whites and give it to lazy, shiftless blacks. Nevertheless, we can eliminate the entire welfare budget and still have the need to cut popular spending programs. It is disgusting to have to go through this charade every one or two decades.

s

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Republican politicians are going to discover what they discovered after the elections of 1980 and 2000: it is not possible to cut government spending without cutting or eliminating programs most Republican voters will insist on keeping.

Rank and file Republican voters seem to think the government does not do much besides take tax money from hard working whites and give it to lazy, shiftless blacks. Nevertheless, we can eliminate the entire welfare budget and still have the need to cut popular spending programs. It is disgusting to have to go through this charade every one or two decades.

They think that because that's what they get told incessantly.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

They think that because that's what they get told incessantly.

Well I know what DL tells us incessantly.

[ElCasanova]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Now it appears that the Republican promise to cut $100 billion from the budget this year was only "hypothetical". Uh-huh....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._01/027383.php

What I find funny, is this article is all about a failed campaign promise. Should we start listing all of the failed campaign promises that Obama has achieved? Lets just call it what it is, hype to get elected. All politicians do it. They have great and wonderful ideas, and then when it comes time to realize it is not possible, then they change their mind.

And as the article stated, even though it is bad to go back on a campaign promise, this was one that was better off being changed. Due to the fact that a lot more people would have suffered. So in the benefit of the US, this is a good thing.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

They think that because that's what they get told incessantly.

The enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan is the durable delusion among most Republicans that they can have the government they want without paying for it. They cannot understand the contradiction between paying lower taxes than nearly any other affluent democracy and spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ElCasanova

What I find funny, is this article is all about a failed campaign promise. Should we start listing all of the failed campaign promises that Obama has achieved? Lets just call it what it is, hype to get elected. All politicians do it. They have great and wonderful ideas, and then when it comes time to realize it is not possible, then they change their mind.

And as the article stated, even though it is bad to go back on a campaign promise, this was one that was better off being changed. Due to the fact that a lot more people would have suffered. So in the benefit of the US, this is a good thing.

In order to be elected, one has to make unrealistic promises. When elected one cannot deliver on the promises because they were unrealistic. The voters are ultimately responsible.

In 1984 Walter Mondale said at the Democratic National Convention that if elected he would raise taxes. He lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide. Nevertheless, in his book, The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1980 to 85 acknowledged that in 1984 tax increases were necessary.

[Baddog_WOOF]

Funny in a bitter way at best.
Watching the Republicans babble about cutting spending is like watching a group of junkies building a rocket to the moon because they heard about a crater on the moon that is full of pure smack.

None of our elected politicians have the guts to do what is necessary in order to stop the bleeding.
Both parties have cheerfully turned a blind eye to the exponential growth of government and the exponential growth in spending and debt.
The biggest danger to America is not radical Islam; the biggest danger to the future of America sits in Congress.
As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

[BigTrobbing]

LOL you complain about that. How about since 2007 the dems spent 5 trillion dollars. And remember it is congress that spends not the President.

So when nobama talks about driving the car into the ditch the dems did that.

And while the dems pissed and moaned over government control of health care they did not even do a budget. that has never been done before.

And do not worry the Republicans will cut, and they will de-fund this health care mess. Along with the rest of the un-elected czars nobama has. What is funny is the Republicans have only been in charge of the house since 12:00 give them time.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Now it appears that the Republican promise to cut $100 billion from the budget this year was only "hypothetical". Uh-huh....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._01/027383.php

It wasn't hypothetical at all, it was and is what they proposed to do. Below is a link that Cantor is using to propose the cuts, all the cuts need to be voted on and passed by congress, you will find the voting tallies on you wants to cut and who wants to continue the wasteful spending on several issues.

Week One: Cut the New Non-Reformed Welfare Program ($25 Billion Savings)

Week Two: Eliminate Federal Employee Pay Raise ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Three: Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Four: Sell Excess Federal Property ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Five: Prohibit Hiring New IRS Agents to Enforce Health Care Law ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Six: Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities ($1.2 Billion Savings)

Week Seven: Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage (Tens of Millions)

Week Eight: Prohibit Sleeper Car Subsidies on Amtrak ($1.2 billion Savings)

Week Nine: Bipartisan Proposal to Terminate AEITC ($1.1 billion Savings)

Week Ten: Require Collection of Unpaid Taxes From Federal Employees ($1 billion Savings)

Week Eleven: Reduce Government Employment to 2008 Levels ($35 billion Savings)

Week Twelve: Terminate the TARP Program Prohibiting Any Additional Bailouts

Week Thirteen: Terminate Taxpayer Funding of National Public Radio

http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ElCasanova

What I find funny, is this article is all about a failed campaign promise. Should we start listing all of the failed campaign promises that Obama has achieved? Lets just call it what it is, hype to get elected. All politicians do it. They have great and wonderful ideas, and then when it comes time to realize it is not possible, then they change their mind.

And as the article stated, even though it is bad to go back on a campaign promise, this was one that was better off being changed. Due to the fact that a lot more people would have suffered. So in the benefit of the US, this is a good thing.

I agree that it's a good thing. I just think it's fun to point out that they orchestrated their reversal in record time. At least Obama waited awhile before disappointing me.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

It wasn't hypothetical at all, it was and is what they proposed to do. Below is a link that Cantor is using to propose the cuts, all the cuts need to be voted on and passed by congress, you will find the voting tallies on you wants to cut and who wants to continue the wasteful spending on several issues.

[URL="http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/week1.htm"]
http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/

Then why did congressional staffers SAY it was hypothetical?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Then why did congressional staffers SAY it was hypothetical?

I don't remember the word "hypothetical" ever appearing in any of the campaign ads I saw from the GOP and Tea Baggers.

[stumbler]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_804976.html

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

And do not worry the Republicans will cut

Really?
You mean like when the Republicans had control of House of Representatives and the White House from 2001 to 2006?
Several trillion dollars added to our national debt while the great Republicans were in charge.

Have you heard about the Republican doll?
You wind it up, send it to Washington and it does nothing

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Really?
You mean like when the Republicans had control of House of Representatives and the White House from 2001 to 2006?
Several trillion dollars added to our national debt while the great Republicans were in charge.

Have you heard about the Republican doll?
You wind it up, send it to Washington and it does nothing

You really have to marvel at BigTrobbing's naivete, don't you.

But ace's n 8's should definitely know better.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Then why did congressional staffers SAY it was hypothetical?

I cant speak for the staffers. I can speak for what I am seeing the republicans, continuing the attempt to cut spending. All of the proposals are detailed in the link that I provided.

If they cant reach the $100 million mark by years end, at least they did try to cut spending, while the democrats told us that they would use pay-go,the democratic lead congress has raised the national debt $5 TRILLION

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

But ace's n 8's should definitely know better.

OPTIMISM MY DEAR,,,,optimism..Any cuts are good cuts, today..

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

If they cant reach the $100 million mark by years end, at least they did try to cut spending

Cutting off the little finger of a hand infected with gangrene will not save the patient.

I know where the Republicans can make a quick and easy budget cut.
Cut all taxpayer funded health care for Congress and their staffs.
Nearly all members of Congress are wealthy, so they can afford to buy their own health insurance.

Besides, if taxpayer funded health care is as evil as the Republicans claim, the first thing the Republicans need to end is taxpayer funded health care for Congress.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Baddog_WOOF;3670286]

I know where the Republicans can make a quick and easy budget cut.
Cut all taxpayer funded health care for Congress and their staffs.
Nearly all members of Congress are wealthy, so they can afford to buy their own health insurance.

I'll go with that..

Besides, if taxpayer funded health care is as evil as the Republicans claim, the first thing the Republicans need to end is taxpayer funded health care for Congress.

Only Obama has claimed that the people need this type of health insurance program, the same type that congress is entitled to, but congress wants nothing to do with what they want us to have.

[tim929]

Wellfare as a buget item isnt all that big.Cutting that only exposes the most vulnerable of our population while accomplishing little in terms of actual spending.

There is a wonderful little video (I will post the link) that helps put 100 million dollars in perspective to the rest of the buget.It also by default helps to put a billion dollars in perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE

[Baddog_WOOF]

Ace,
We both know the Republicans don't have the guts to eliminate taxpayer funded health care for Congress.

The Republicans will fail at their attempt to repeal health care reforms, but they will look up and say, "See! We tried!", then the Republicans will go back to what they do best--giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Baddog_WOOF;3670335]

We both know the Republicans don't have the guts to eliminate taxpayer funded health care for Congress.

I know they wont do it, but I like your plan.

The Republicans will fail at their attempt to repeal health care reforms,

They already know that it wont get repealed yet, but it is a step in their commitment to repeal the bill,in reality they just wont fund it.

but they will look up and say, "See! We tried!", then the Republicans will go back to what they do best--giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

Bush was a 'republican' (by name only)the Bush tax cuts were for all Americans. The Democrats only pick and choose who gets benefits sponsored by the governments...

The people are watching the members of congress now, and they will for a long time, and congress knows that.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

The people are watching the members of congress now, and they will for a long time, and congress knows that.

Long odds on the elitist Liberal Democrats not remembering 2010 come 2012.

Their self righteousness will bite them in the ass once again. They are convinced that the electorate are a bunch of fools.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=tenguy;3670464]

Long odds on the elitist Liberal Democrats not remembering 2010 come 2012.

They already forgot,, putting Pelosi in as minority leader. The most disliked congress in over 80 years.

Their self righteousness will bite them in the ass once again. They are convinced that the electorate are a bunch of fools.

It shows, as they lost a vast amount of seats.

To get the republicans to vote on raising the debt ceiling, they will get some budgetary cuts on spending.

[PhillyPAGuy]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

OPTIMISM MY DEAR,,,,optimism..Any cuts are good cuts, today..

You'd be changing your tune mighty quick if they made cuts that hurt the economy. Yes, such a thing can happen

Originally Posted by tenguy

They are convinced that the electorate are a bunch of fools.

By and large said electorate is.

Call the last one an elitist Liberal Democrat and I will probably die of laughter.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by PhillyPAGuy

You'd be changing your tune mighty quick if they made cuts that hurt the economy. Yes, such a thing can happen



By and large said electorate is.

Call the last one an elitist Liberal Democrat and I will probably die of laughter.

Not an elitist liberal Democrat, but Professor of Law who has identified the Democrats secret to electoral success, "drive the fools to the polls".

The Democrat precinct leaders are famous for getting the uneducated out to vote, there efforts in the inner cities of America are legend. So it is no wonder these voters don't know who won what.

[PhillyPAGuy]

So in other words: The electorate isn't stupid, except when it is. Then it is stupid. Democrats are elitist. Rah Rah conservative hypocrite posts angrily on sex board!

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by PhillyPAGuy

So in other words: The electorate isn't stupid, except when it is. Then it is stupid. Democrats are elitist. Rah Rah conservative hypocrite posts angrily on sex board!

There's plenty of evidence on the web that states the democrats poke and prod to get democrat votes, from supplying cigarettes to ice cream,, the young and the homeless are targets for the democrats. Those are generally the uneducated to the ways of life.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by PhillyPAGuy

So in other words: The electorate isn't stupid, except when it is. Then it is stupid. Democrats are elitist. Rah Rah conservative hypocrite posts angrily on sex board!

Angrily?

Not angry, just concerned for your sanity.

The Democrats are elitist, they think they have all the answers, when they get their asses handed to them, they blame the stupid red states. Yet they are losing on their home turf, they have underestimated the voters. Wasn't enough buses available to stuff the ballot boxes. apparently.

[ElCasanova]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I agree that it's a good thing. I just think it's fun to point out that they orchestrated their reversal in record time. At least Obama waited awhile before disappointing me.

They did not do a complete reversal of the plan, just a modification of the end result. They are still going to go through with their original plan, just will not be able to achieve the total they originally wanted.

[smcaaphd]

This Republican Party, of which you speak.... ... ... will there be balloons?

[ElCasanova]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

This Republican Party, of which you speak.... ... ... will there be balloons?

Most probably filled with helium so we can all have those weird voices.

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by ElCasanova

Most probably filled with helium so we can all have those weird voices.

ohyay they're the best kind!!

We tie cocktail sausages to them and send them from one end of the room to the other - even if the person we 'send' it to ask for a volauvent - or however you spell the damn thing

[WhaWhaWha]

I'd like to see one of those try to fly if you tie it to my sausage

[smcaaphd]

I reckon I'd need a hot air balloon for you, you sexy hunk of man-meat ewe

[WhaWhaWha]

Cum fly with me SMC...

[smcaaphd]

Gosh, WhaWha, you should sell that line to an airline company

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Not an elitist liberal Democrat, but Professor of Law who has identified the Democrats secret to electoral success, "drive the fools to the polls".

The Democrat precinct leaders are famous for getting the uneducated out to vote, there efforts in the inner cities of America are legend. So it is no wonder these voters don't know who won what.

There's a flip side to that coin, tenguy. Republicans have made a living for years by attempting to prevent people from voting, particularly minorities, using all sorts of underhanded tactics. Now, you tell me...which party best represents American ideals?

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

There's a flip side to that coin, tenguy. Republicans have made a living for years by attempting to prevent people from voting, particularly minorities, using all sorts of underhanded tactics. Now, you tell me...which party best represents American ideals?

What are you talking about,, I've never heard of such accusations.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

What are you talking about,, I've never heard of such accusations.

Are you fucking kidding me? Maybe if you stopped watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh full time, you'd actually learn something. Remember the long lines in Ohio in 2004, because inner city polling places were given fewer voting machines than white, suburban precincts? How about minorities who were sent letters threatening them with arrest if they attempted to vote, or who were challenged by poll-watchers while attempting to vote?

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

There's a flip side to that coin, tenguy. Republicans have made a living for years by attempting to prevent people from voting, particularly minorities, using all sorts of underhanded tactics. Now, you tell me...which party best represents American ideals?

Now that is not the truth, it was the Democrats who blocked the polls and enacted poll taxes in the South.

Recently there has be numerous cases of voter fraud (in Illinois as an example) where the Conservatives insisted that they be investigated. Is that what you mean, the Republicans blocked illegal voting, how nasty can you get.

You need to get your information from better sources.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Are you fucking kidding me? Maybe if you stopped watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh full time, you'd actually learn something. Remember the long lines in Ohio in 2004, because inner city polling places were given fewer voting machines than white, suburban precincts? How about minorities who were sent letters threatening them with arrest if they attempted to vote, or who were challenged by poll-watchers while attempting to vote?

Ahem, Ohio is a stanchly Democrat state.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Now that is not the truth, it was the Democrats who blocked the polls and enacted poll taxes in the South.

Recently there has be numerous cases of voter fraud (in Illinois as an example) where the Conservatives insisted that they be investigated. Is that what you mean, the Republicans blocked illegal voting, how nasty can you get.

You need to get your information from better sources.

Do you deny that the Ohio Secretary of State (who, by the way, was Bush's campaign manger for Ohio) deliberately reduced the number of voting machines in inner-city precincts, resulting in people standing in line in the rain for hours after the polls were supposed to have closed?

Oh, and those southern Democrats who enacted poll taxes and literacy tests? They all became Republicans, which is why the Republican Party now owns the South.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Ahem, Ohio is a stanchly Democrat state.

It wasn't in 2004. And it isn't now, for that matter.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Do you deny that the Ohio Secretary of State (who, by the way, was Bush's campaign manger for Ohio) deliberately reduced the number of voting machines in inner-city precincts, resulting in people standing in line in the rain for hours after the polls were supposed to have closed?

Yes.