Republicans Contract With America 2.0 [Archive] - Debate Policy

red states rule

09-09-2010, 04:51 AM

Pres Barack Hoover Obama took shots at Republicans in his "speech" this week regarding how the Republicans have no ideas. I doubt if Pres Barack Hoover Obama doesn't retract on his words when the Republicans came forward with their ideas and correct solutions to get the economy moving forward.

Here are few ideas that are already on the table that BHO didn't mention which would save over 1.3 trillion.

I am glad to see both Republicans and Dems openly telling the voters what they stand for. It gives voters a clear picture as they go to the polls on November 2

- Cancel Unused TARP Funds. Prohibit the Treasury Secretary from entering into new commitments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]. Ending TARP would prevent up to $396 billion in additional disbursements; CBO estimates savings of $16 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.

- Cancel Unspent ‘Stimulus’ Funds. Rescind all unobligated budget authority authorized under the “stimulus” bill and dedicate to deficit reduction. Saves up to $266 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.

- Cut and Cap Discretionary Spending. Return non-defense discretionary spending to pre-Obama (fiscal year 2008) baseline levels. Saves up to $925 billion. Legislation introduced by Reps. Ryan and Hensarling (H.R. 3964) and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio (H.R 3298) include caps on discretionary spending.

- Reduce Government Employment. Hire one person for every two who leaves civilian government service until the workforce is reduced to pre-Obama levels (exempting the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs). Saves an estimated $35 billion. H.R. 5348 introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.

- Freeze Government Pay. Freeze Federal civilian pay for 1 year. Saves an estimated $30 billion. H.R. 5382 introduced by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

- Adopt the Legislative Line-Item Veto. Enact a constitutional line-item veto law. The President’s FY 2011 budget included terminations, reductions, and savings that would achieve $23 billion in one year. While Congress may not accept all these savings, the Line Item Veto can help reduce spending. H.R. 1294 introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

- Reform and Bring Transparency to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Reform these companies by ending conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, reducing conforming loan limits, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure. According to CBO, the cost to taxpayers of putting government in control of Fannie and Freddie is $373 billion through 2020. Saves an estimated $30 billion. H.R. 4889 introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. H.R. 4653 introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/cutspendingnow.pdf

revelarts

09-09-2010, 06:08 AM

PostmodernProphet

09-09-2010, 02:49 PM

Most of that sounds like a good start.

as long as it's only a start....we need far bigger cuts than that to bring things in line....I'd even go for a tax increase if they would cut spending by say 20%.......

darin

09-09-2010, 06:05 PM

red states rule

09-09-2010, 06:16 PM

Most of that sounds like a good start.
but ,umm, why should we believe them this time exactly.
and "well the democrats are even worse" is not an answer that sways me anymore sorry. been there done that.
or "You'll waste your vote if you vote 3rd party" I'll have wasted my vote if I vote republican and they don't do what they promised... AGAIN.

If the Republicans have not learned their lesson by now - they never will. I want CONSERVATIVES in power and REPEAL much of the BS Obama and Dems have rammed down our throats for the last 2 years

red states rule

09-09-2010, 06:19 PM

Freezing Fed Civ pay? So it'd be two years of a net pay loss for us, eh - counting cost of living... (sigh).

It's easy for people to hate on Federal employees. That'd be a popular thing, except for my family.

Contrary to some popular opinion, gov't employees do NOT earn as much as those in the Private sector. On-paper, or what I call "Fake" Pay or benefits aren't realized.

At Microsoft my peers are earing 30% more than I make as a Fed. The 'nouns' in our jobs are different, but the skill-sets match.

No offense to you DMPbut riaes in the private secotr are few and far between

In my case I have been with my empoyer for about 5 years. I got one raise 3 years age and one 6 months ago. The last raise only due to the fact I moved to another department

Government has to learn to live within its means like the rest of us have to do

As far a pay in the ptivate sector VS the public sector

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.

"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.

Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.

Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.

Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

darin

09-09-2010, 07:01 PM

That's your particular job or industry. Thing is, private sector pay doesn't need APPROVAL OF CONGRESS to increase (unless its one of the industries Obama illegally took-over).

That article relies on bad data - those magic "On Paper...." elements. The truth is, it's just not the same.

My boss' boss' boss makes, perhaps, in the low 6-digits. Less than $200k. Her comparable position, based on scope of responsibilities at a major industry makes twice that.

Every year the Cost of living has increased much more than whatever pay I get.

Now, I make pretty good money - sure I do...but the reason of those increases is only to bring even PARTIAL parity of pay. In fact, For most years in recent history Fed Civ pay has matched that of our Active Duty counterparts. They don't get paid ENOUGH - and some of us (I dont put myself in that category) don't either.

Fed Civ are often involved in Highly technical and National Security-vital type positions where good pay attracts good candidates. Feds are scientists, Doctors, Police, fire-fighters, rocket-scientists, and strategic planners (:D). We deploy to combat zones - and get this - we don't often get guns.

I still feel blessed to be the grade I am - but my costs and taxes are rising just as much as anybody else. We contribute to our community's small businesses just like others. We are NOT fat-cat rich folk - although we are by some folks' standards.

Freezing fed pay only hurts recruitment in vital areas, and hurts the middle-class (Poor by some standards) families like us. Fed civilians (normal folk, not appointees and politicians) didn't screw the economy. Fiscal Liberals did. Now they want to earn brownie points by making ANYONE in teh federal sector the enemy.

For the record, since 2002 my pay has gone up to more than 215% of what I made then. BUT - that's not for doing the same job. I've earn promotions into positions of greater responsibility. Much greater. If I would have stayed in the same job/grade? Pay would have gone up...I dunno...2% per year x 8 years. Less than cost of living, I'm sure.

Oh...and to GET, say, a 50K a year job, at least for Dept of Army? Requirements often include PhD. No shit. Luckily I'm not in one of those jobs :)

red states rule

09-09-2010, 07:08 PM

That's your particular job or industry. Thing is, civ pay doesn't need APPROVAL OF CONGRESS to increase (unless its one of the industries Obama illegally took-over).

That article relies on bad data - those magic "On Paper...." elements. The truth is, it's just not the same.

My boss' boss' boss makes, perhaps, in the low 6-digits. Her comparable position at a major industry makes twice that.

Every year the Cost of living has increased much more than whatever pay I get.

Now, I make pretty good money - sure I do...but the reason of those increases is only to bring even PARTIAL parity of pay. In fact, For most years in recent history Fed Civ pay has matched that of our Active Duty counterparts. They don't get paid ENOUGH - and some of us (I dont put myself in that category) don't either.

Fed Civ are often involved in Highly technical and National Security-vital type positions where good pay attracts good candidates. Feds are scientists, Doctors, Police, fire-fighters. We deploy to combat zones - and get this - we don't often get guns.

I still feel blessed to be the grade I am - but my costs and taxes are rising just as much as anybody else. We contribute to our community's small businesses just like others. We are NOT fat-cat rich folk - although we are by some folks' standards.

Freezing fed pay only hurts recruitment in vital areas, and hurts the middle-class (Poor by some standards) families like us. Fed civilians (normal folk, not appointees and politicians) didn't screw the economy. Fiscal Liberals did. Now they want to earn brownie points by making ANYONE in teh federal sector the enemy.

For the record, since 2002 my pay has gone up to more than 215% of what I made then. BUT - that's not for doing the same job. I've earn promotions into positions of greater responsibility. Much greater. If I would have stayed in the same job/grade? Pay would have gone up...I dunno...2% per year x 8 years. Less than cost of living, I'm sure.

Oh...and to GET, say, a 50K a year job, at least for Dept of Army? Requirements often include PhD. No shit. Luckily I'm not in one of those jobs :)

It is not restricted to my job and industry - pay raises are rare in the private sector. With so many unemployed people it is an employers market.

It is not just this article on the bloated pay for government workers. There have been many reports. the government is the only sector growing under Obama

Also, we see the states sinking under the cost of government and that is where alot of the "stimulus" money has gone. To keep government workers on the payroll

DMP, again nothing personal, but I am fed up with the government continuing to frow, continuing to add to their payroll - while the rest of us squeak by and are told to hand over more of our money to pay the cost

darin

09-09-2010, 07:14 PM

red states rule

09-09-2010, 07:22 PM

I know it's not personal. But there are plenty of OTHER articles showing why the articles are wrong. It's apples to oranges.

Apart from the Defense industries of the Gov't - I generally agree with you. But these pay raises are a drop in the bucket. They won't do anything to help when compared with the waste in most other areas. Frankly, the Dept of Defense, agency by agency, strives to find ways to save money.

Being professional defenders and killers of those who wish to do us harm is expensive.

It is not only the pay DMP, but the pensions that are bankrupting state governments.

Again, there are not to many private sector workers who can work for 30 years and retire on about 80% of their pay

Here is another link to the pay of government workers. From the Heritage Foundation - a pretty reliable source

Inflated Federal Pay: How Americans Are Overtaxed to Overpay the Civil Service

Abstract: Salaries and benefits—for identical jobs—are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers’ high skills are unjustified, as this study shows. Equally unjustified is the fact that federal workers can rarely be fired, no matter how poor their job performance. Congress should align federal salaries and benefits with market rates—a simple, and fair, move that could save taxpayers nearly $47 billion in 2011. Heritage Foundation labor policy analyst James Sherk provides detailed data on why Congress should not overtax all Americans to overpay the privileged workers in the civil service.

Many news organizations have reported that the average federal employee earns more than the average private-sector worker.[1] Is higher federal pay justified given that the federal government employs a more skilled workforce than the private sector? Detailed analysis shows that the size of the wage discrepancies is not warranted:

The federal pay system gives the average federal employee hourly cash earnings 22 percent above the average private worker’s, controlling for observable skills and characteristics.

Including non-cash benefits adds to this disparity. The average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee.

Overall, controlling for other factors, federal employees earn approximately 30 percent to 40 percent more in total compensation (wages and benefits) than comparable private-sector workers.

Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy. Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000—12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.

Federal employees demonstrate with their actions that they receive better compensation in the public sector than in the private sector: They quit their jobs at one-third the rate of the private employees.

Bringing federal compensation in line with private-sector compensation would save taxpayers approximately $47 billion in 2011.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Inflated-Federal-Pay-How-Americans-Are-Overtaxed-to-Overpay-the-Civil-Service

darin

09-09-2010, 07:35 PM

It is not only the pay DMP, but the pensions that are bankrupting state governments.

Again, there are not to many private sector workers who can work for 30 years and retire on about 80% of their pay

Here is another link to the pay of government workers. From the Heritage Foundation - a pretty reliable source

I'm not discussing STATE pensions. The first line in the abstract is an absolute lie, or spin.

Equally unjustified is the fact that federal workers can rarely be fired, no matter how poor their job performance.

Stupid, stupid, malicious LIE.

I don't know anyone who collects 80% of their pay after retirement. I'd say about HALF that at MOST.

When I retire at age 56, after 35 years of Federal Service, I'll get about 40% of my BASE salary...sort of. Plus my IRA. How is that extravagant? It's not like I was sitting on my thumb for 35 years; I have been working to make our Army more efficient, and to help the Army care for Soldiers, Families, Retirees, Veterans, and fellow civilian employees.

red states rule

09-09-2010, 07:52 PM

I'm not discussing STATE pensions. The first line in the abstract is an absolute lie, or spin.

Stupid, stupid, malicious LIE.

I don't know anyone who collects 80% of their pay after retirement. I'd say about HALF that at MOST.

When I retire at age 56, after 35 years of Federal Service, I'll get about 40% of my BASE salary...sort of. Plus my IRA. How is that extravagant? It's not like I was sitting on my thumb for 35 years; I have been working to make our Army more efficient, and to help the Army care for Soldiers, Families, Retirees, Veterans, and fellow civilian employees.

State bailouts are bleeding the taxpayers dry DMP. The libs along with the union thugs are demanding more and more money

In CA, look at their budget mess thanks to government workers retiring in their early 50's and the taxpayers support them with generous pensions

Meanwhile the unions are taking our tax money while spending hundreds of millions to keep Dems in power

DMP, the most secure job in America is a Federal government job. With the union thugs running things, it is damn near impossible to fire a government worker

Check out CA generous pensions DMP. It is one factor why the state is going broke and why our tax dolars are going to keep the state afloat

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106689576

I am going to watch some of the game and go to bed. Nice talking to you DMP

Have a grear night and we will continue this later

Chow!!

darin

09-10-2010, 04:02 AM

State bailouts are bleeding the taxpayers dry DMP. The libs along with the union thugs are demanding more and more money

Different topic...but right. Got ya.

In CA, look at their budget mess thanks to government workers retiring in their early 50's and the taxpayers support them with generous pensions

Meanwhile the unions are taking our tax money while spending hundreds of millions to keep Dems in power

Never argued otherwise.

DMP, the most secure job in America is a Federal government job. With the union thugs running things, it is damn near impossible to fire a government worker

Gov't union thugs don't exist. We aren't forced to join a union.

Check out CA generous pensions DMP. It is one factor why the state is going broke and why our tax dolars are going to keep the state afloat

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106689576

I am going to watch some of the game and go to bed. Nice talking to you DMP

Have a grear night and we will continue this later

Chow!!

okay then....

red states rule

09-10-2010, 04:39 AM

darin

09-10-2010, 05:05 AM

Bottom line is DMP, government is to big, to inefficient. to bloated, and to expensive

I hope Conservatives take power and take a chainsaw to the Federal budget. They need to repeal most of the crap Dems have passed in the last 2 years

The rule for most government programs should be if you can find the same service in the Yellow Pages the government should not be offering it

Reckless abandon rules the day? Instead of cutting where it makes sense...just cut it all, eh? Okay then.

Here's a tip, if I may be so bold, don't believe everything you read - EVEN if it's disparaging to Fed Employees as a whole. We take an Oath. Most of us take our jobs very seriously.

red states rule

09-10-2010, 05:17 AM

Reckless abandon rules the day? Instead of cutting where it makes sense...just cut it all, eh? Okay then.

Here's a tip, if I may be so bold, don't believe everything you read - EVEN if it's disparaging to Fed Employees as a whole. We take an Oath. Most of us take our jobs very seriously.

I am saying cut where it makes sense DMP. It seems government NEVER goes without. Government never seems to run out ways to take more of our money to finance their spending plans

Even when government programs and departments get more money year after year - they always demand more

I love what government calls a "spending cut". If they demand a 10% increase in their budget and they get only a 5% increase - they whine how their budget was cut by 5%. They ignore the fact they are getting more money then they did the previous year

Meanwhile, we have to manage on less money as the government acts like a Hoover vacume cleaner and sucks the money out our pockets

I just saw where Federal workers owe about $1 billion in back taxes including WH aides

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20000688-503983.html

I know there are good hard working government workers DMP, but the bottom line is - there are too many government workers in a bloated government

darin

09-10-2010, 05:47 AM

I am saying cut where it makes sense dmp. It seems government NEVER goes without. Government never seems to run out ways to take more of our money to finance their spending plans

Do you think it makes sense to not even allow a 50% of the rate of cost of living rise to Fed Employees? If Cost of living went up 3% this year, does 1.5% raise (up .1% from last year) make good sense?

Cutting salaries isn't the answer - especially for folks in the DoD, VA, and Sciences.

Even when government programs and departments get more money year after year - they always demand more

I love what government calls a "spending cut". If they demand a 10% increase in their budget and they get only a 5% increase - they whine how their budget was cut by 5%. They ignore the fact they are getting more money then they did the previous year

Nobody demands anything. Agencies present their costs of operation and budgets get drawn. I personally know agencies with Dept of Army who lost FIFTY percent of their operating budget. That translates into fewer services to support the war fight and those who fight.

Things cost money. Want to upgrade Fed Employees PC's to something from this decade? That costs a LOT. Want to remove ice from sidewalks so Fed Employees and Soldiers and Families don't slip and break parts? Costs cash-money. Want to rail-head STRYKERS for re-deployment? Costs cash-money. Want to hire an occupational health specialist to work to reduce workplace injuries? Costs cash-money. Want to KEEP that person from moving to the Corporate world after the Gov't pays for their training? Cash. Money.

Meanwhile, we have to manage on less money as the government acts like a Hoover vacume cleaner and sucks the money out our pockets

Very little to do with Federal Employees. The People voted/chose those who rob them.

I just saw where Federal workers owe about $1 billion in back taxes including WH aides

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20000688-503983.html

How much do NON-Federal workers owe? In 2009 it was reported Americans, as a whole, "owed" $83B in back taxes (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=6645858). The problem is not 'owing' taxes...the problem is the ELECTED officials demanding MORE taxes in the first place.

I know there are good hard working government workers dmp, but the bottom line is - there are too many government workers in a bloated government

So....a 1.5% pay raise wouldn't bust anyone's budget. If you want the Feds to stop spending money, find areas that make sense.

Kathianne

09-10-2010, 06:34 AM

In the short run, there are few areas in government where spending can be lessened or at least kept from increasing-salaries and benefits.

There are many good bureaucrats, I've no doubt of that, but too many and too much redundancy-it's the nature of the beast.

Costs for government employees have far outstripped the private sector and their benefits are much higher than the private sector:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

Federal workers
earning double their
private counterparts

Updated 8/13/2010 10:53 AM

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have
stagnated, federal employees' average compensation
has grown to more than double what private sector
workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average
pay and benefit increases than private employees for
nine years in a row. The compensation gap between
federal and private workers has doubled in the past
decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and
benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers
made $61,051 in total compensation, according to
the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the
latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown
from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year...

D is right about all of this being a function of who was elected, that is where the change too will come from. Just as I think union folks should start expecting more benefits like the private market, so too should government workers. I'm all in favor of eliminating departments like education and energy, but those will not make all that much of a dent.

We all know that entitlements are the true problem, but those will not be addressed in a fell swoop, if ever.

darin

09-10-2010, 07:41 AM

Those accounts of what Fed Employees earn are absolute lies/spin.

bullypulpit

09-10-2010, 07:51 AM

Imagine that! The GOP floating discredited, failed ideas. Same tired, old crap...different century. :coffee:

darin

09-10-2010, 08:10 AM

Imagine that! The GOP floating discredited, failed ideas. Same tired, old crap...different century. :coffee:

When has cuts in spending FAILED?

Which one of those conservative ideas won't work/help to fix the economy?

revelarts

09-10-2010, 07:13 PM

Imagine that! The GOP floating discredited, failed ideas. Same tired, old crap...different century. :coffee:

And the democrats current, neo socialist print more money and give it away willie nilly , plan is working so well Bully?

red states rule

09-11-2010, 07:45 AM

Imagine that! The GOP floating discredited, failed ideas. Same tired, old crap...different century. :coffee:

and guess what BP? The voters AGREE with them

Polls show voters want cuts in spending and taxes

Pagan

09-11-2010, 03:07 PM

Pres Barack Hoover Obama took shots at Republicans in his "speech" this week regarding how the Republicans have no ideas. I doubt if Pres Barack Hoover Obama doesn't retract on his words when the Republicans came forward with their ideas and correct solutions to get the economy moving forward.

Here are few ideas that are already on the table that BHO didn't mention which would save over 1.3 trillion.

I am glad to see both Republicans and Dems openly telling the voters what they stand for. It gives voters a clear picture as they go to the polls on November 2

My two bit's -

- Cancel Unused TARP Funds. Prohibit the Treasury Secretary from entering into new commitments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]. Ending TARP would prevent up to $396 billion in additional disbursements; CBO estimates savings of $16 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.

Bush Program his administration created and he signed into law October 3, 2008, yes get rid of it and anyone who voted for it.

- Cancel Unspent ‘Stimulus’ Funds. Rescind all unobligated budget authority authorized under the “stimulus” bill and dedicate to deficit reduction. Saves up to $266 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.

Again a Bush Program, yes get rid of it and anyone who voted for it.

- Cut and Cap Discretionary Spending. Return non-defense discretionary spending to pre-Obama (fiscal year 2008) baseline levels. Saves up to $925 billion. Legislation introduced by Reps. Ryan and Hensarling (H.R. 3964) and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio (H.R 3298) include caps on discretionary spending.

Yep, get rid of it

- Reduce Government Employment. Hire one person for every two who leaves civilian government service until the workforce is reduced to pre-Obama levels (exempting the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs). Saves an estimated $35 billion. H.R. 5348 introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.

Yep .....

- Freeze Government Pay. Freeze Federal civilian pay for 1 year. Saves an estimated $30 billion. H.R. 5382 introduced by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

Yep, but I'd go much further. Dissolve their Retirement program, elected office was never intended to be a "Career". Allowing it to be a "career" has created an Aristocracy and a ruling class who are beholden not to the people but to those who fund their elections. That and put them on Mediaid for their health plan.

- Adopt the Legislative Line-Item Veto. Enact a constitutional line-item veto law. The President’s FY 2011 budget included terminations, reductions, and savings that would achieve $23 billion in one year. While Congress may not accept all these savings, the Line Item Veto can help reduce spending. H.R. 1294 introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

You must mean a "Congressional" line-item veto law, haven't done any indepth review of it but initially it looks good.

- Reform and Bring Transparency to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Reform these companies by ending conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, reducing conforming loan limits, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure. According to CBO, the cost to taxpayers of putting government in control of Fannie and Freddie is $373 billion through 2020. Saves an estimated $30 billion. H.R. 4889 introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. H.R. 4653 introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

I say dissolve them completely.

That and come up with a plan to slash 50% of the Federal Government over the next 10 years.

Additionally

1. Requirement of ANY person running for office, take a class on the Constitution.

2. Flat Tax and dissolve the IRS

red states rule

09-11-2010, 03:14 PM

In addition I would love to see conservatives run on:

repealing Obamacare

repealing financial reform bill

making the Bush tax cuts permanent

additional across the board tax cuts and cutting the corporate, dividend, and capital gains tax rates

opening up all areas where we have oil reserves to drilling

cutting Congressional staff by at least 50%

pushing for a flat tax to replace the current tax code thereby getting rid of about 90% of the IRS. It would also free up the billions people and companies pay to have their tax returns prepared

KarlMarx

09-12-2010, 06:33 AM

I hate to say this, dmp, but right now... my company (a defense contractor) is doing just that and more... many people are going without pay increases.... and coming up... demotions... people's pay will be matched to the work that they are doing.... I don't mind.. as long as I have a job....

Plus... executives and managers are being "encouraged" to take early retirement or find other opportunities...

Someone I knew, who graduated at the top of her class from MIT, held several patents, and was a top performer was told she no longer had a job... people are being terminated simply because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time....

I've been living under the Sword of Damocles since the cancellation of the VH-71... I am currently working on a temporary assignment that will take me to year's end, and I *hope* to get another temporary assignment that might take me to the end of March....

what have I done? I've cut back... canceled all my magazine subscriptions, canceled a lot of my charitable giving... canceled all of my cable...eating out is a no-no, I take a bag lunch to work, I'm shopping at Wal-Mart and doing more repair work myself...

I'm also committing an hour a day to learn new skills, e.g. .NET and SAP, in the hopes that I may be able to get a job that lasts more than a few months....

I'm on several medications just to contain my anxiety and depression... I have to carry them around in one of those pill caddies... I am nothing short of a nervous wreck....

That's why my posts about Obama have been so angry... he's put me through the wringer...

And if he were told about what his decisions were doing to people, my opinion is that his reply would be an unstifled yawn... the guy does not care what happens to this country.

Frankly, if I heard that Obama was shot and killed... it would take all I could muster to contain my glee....

I'd like to see the guy frog marched out of the White House, tried for high crimes and misdemeanors and swinging from the end of a gallows, along with Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid...

and I would supply the rope and the lumber....

red states rule

09-12-2010, 06:37 AM

red states rule

09-12-2010, 07:24 AM

The Tea Party is not waiting to let Republicans know they will be watching them and they better live up to their promises

Leaders of national tea party groups on Saturday warned Republicans not to forget conservative values if a wave of voter frustration catapults them into power in November.

Republican success on Election Day doesn’t mean the tea party’s work is done, leaders said, because members must make sure new Republican officials don’t go moderate once in power.

“Our end date and our end game is not Nov. 2,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, at a Freedom and Faith Coalition conference in Washington. “On Nov. 2 our work actually just begins.”

“Hopefully, we’ll be able to enjoy Nov. 2, that evening. But regardless of who is elected on Nov. 2, Nov. 3 we have to start holding those newly elected officials, nationally, state, and local,” she said, interrupted by loud applause from a crowd of about 100 in a conference room at the Mayflower Hotel. “We have to hold their feet to the fire.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42011.html

Kathianne

09-12-2010, 07:29 AM

The Tea Paerty is not waiting to let Republicans know they will be watching them and they better live up to their promises

I think this is where the tea parties will come into their own, even moreso than they have. ;) While the GOP will be the immediate benefactors of the peoples' wrath, for the most part it is once again the 'better vote,' when angry.

I like Bush's foreign policies, but his domestic were of the same bent as Obama's or Clinton's or GH Bush. In actuality there's been little change at the executive level or in Congress, we just have voted for change of party, not actions. So, if the GOP sweeps and does the same, I think the time will be right for third party.

red states rule

09-12-2010, 07:32 AM

I think this is where the tea parties will come into their own, even moreso than they have. ;) While the GOP will be the immediate benefactors of the peoples' wrath, for the most part it is once again the 'better vote,' when angry.

I like Bush's foreign policies, but his domestic were of the same bent as Obama's or Clinton's or GH Bush. In actuality there's been little change at the executive level or in Congress, we just have voted for change of party, not actions. So, if the GOP sweeps and does the same, I think the time will be right for third party.

The Tea Party see RINO's like McCain, Snow, and Collins as the possible problem. The Tea Party (like me) are worried once Republicans take over they will go moderate and "try to work with Obama and the minority Dems

The voters are making their demands very clear and Republicans better listen and the RINO's need to stop trying to make nice with the administration. You are right Kat, if the R's blow it then a third party is the only way to go

KarlMarx

09-12-2010, 07:34 AM

The step on the road to recovery Karl will take place on November 2

That will be a first step, but more must be done... we must take back the culture, too... that will be a long and hard road and will take a generation or more... I don't know if we'll ever see it in our lifetimes.

red states rule

09-12-2010, 07:36 AM

That will be a first step, but more must be done... we must take back the culture, too... that will be a long and hard road and will take a generation or more... I don't know if we'll ever see it in our lifetimes.

America made it thru the Civil War, two World Wars, the Great Depression, and A,erica will get thru the Era of Obama

Kathianne

09-12-2010, 07:38 AM

America made it thru the Civil War, two World Wars, the Great Depression, and A,erica will get thru the Era of Obama

Obama's election was a symptom, not the cause. The sameness of the two parties is the making of more than a century.

red states rule

09-12-2010, 07:41 AM

Obama's election was a symptom, not the cause. The sameness of the two parties is the making of more than a century.

The eection of Obama was a result in the Republicans picking a lousy candidate and the liberal media airing Obama campaign ads in the form of "news stories"

It was the perfect storm for Obama and now all of us are paying the price

Pagan

09-12-2010, 07:48 AM

Obama's election was a symptom, not the cause. The sameness of the two parties is the making of more than a century.

Yep, people have been such sheep thinking there's a difference between the two Party's. Ronnie was the only bump in the road, other than his Administration there isn't a difference between the two party's.

The ass kicking the GOP got was an overwhelming rejection of 'Dubya's Progressive Liberalism, now the Dem's are going to get their ass kicking with the rejection of Obama's Progressive Liberalism. The ones that believe it's a vote for the Republican platform it shows just how clueless they are.

red states rule

09-12-2010, 07:56 AM

If Republicans fail to deliver, then they will take the heat Obama and Dems are taking right now

I wonder if Obama is standing by the comments he made about the Tea Party

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mVIUdfBY11M?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mVIUdfBY11M?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

red states rule

09-13-2010, 03:56 AM

The liberal media is asking RINO's to do the "right" thing and side with the Dems

snip

In a decision that was either the most Machiavellian in American history or the most naive, a 5 to 4 conservative majority broke with decades of precedent and said Congress had no right to ban corporate or labor union spending to influence the outcome of elections. The court ruled that corporations such as Consolidated Megacorp have to be treated the same as living, breathing "persons." The decision is Machiavellian if the conservatives on the court consciously want to bring us back to the 1890s. Or it's naive because the justices didn't consider what their ruling would mean in practice.

Sponsors want to bring back a Senate bill that would let voters in on the game by requiring corporations and unions to disclose their political spending, even if it is laundered through third-party groups. Voters in my beleaguered representative's district would get to know who was trashing her.

A disclosure bill has already passed the House and the Senate version, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) got 58 votes, with 60 needed for passage. They key to its defeat were three Republican senators -- Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Scott Brown of Massachusetts -- who say they support reform and disclosure in principle but objected to particular aspects of the bill.

One of their objections, that the bill would alter the playing field for November's midterm elections, is now irrelevant since it's too late for changes in the law to affect this campaign.

The threesome raised other issues, including supposed imbalances in the way corporations and labor unions are treated under the measure. But Schumer has signaled he would be happy to negotiate, and the simplest solution may be a clean disclosure bill that would strip out some of the provisions that the three Republicans don't like.

This, however, presumes the three would-be GOP reformers are willing to put their votes where their public declarations are, in the face of enormous pressure to side with the Consolidated Megacorps of the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/12/AR2010091202885.html

Modus Ponens

09-13-2010, 08:28 AM

Obama's election was a symptom, not the cause. The sameness of the two parties is the making of more than a century.

This whole board truly is little but a mouthpiece for the conservative Id. I just love how we heard crickets from all you Cons about spending during Bush's years in office; it's only when an (illegal alien Muslim?) Democrat gets in office (on the heels of a total economic meltdown that happened on your watch) that you types go ape-crazy, smearing your crap on the walls.

Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. And now, because the president was not able to wave a magic wand and clean up your mess, his party is going to get punished at the polls. Because we know that the economy is what it's all about. If jobs were coming back, people wouldn't be buying your same-old hypocritical Republican arguments. If you don't see that, you've truly drunk the Kool-Aid.

But jobs aren't coming back in force right now; and the reason for that is not Tarp, is not the stimulus, is not Obamacare. The reason is old-fashioned plain as day: Since the Reagan era, supply-side happy Republicanism has, more than any other factor, fostered America's credit-card mentality, inciting us to live beyond our means. We rang up huge private debts, even as we accepted tax cuts without any decrease in services. You complain about the culture, but that is your culture - the "buy now, pay later" mentality. And now we are paying. Your culture caused this catastrophe, and you have the appalling hypocrisy to blame the last guy left holding the bag?!

Of course you do. Hypocrisy is the Con's only ideology. In the name of "liberty" you set out to promote the individual and smash the common good.

Well, you ought to be proud of yourselves. Mission Accomplished.

jimnyc

09-13-2010, 08:44 AM

I just love how we heard crickets from all you Cons about spending during Bush's years in office; it's only when an (illegal alien Muslim?) Democrat gets in office (on the heels of a total economic meltdown that happened on your watch) that you types go ape-crazy, smearing your crap on the walls.

Were you a member here during the Bush years? I didn't think so, cause you would then know that MANY of the conservatives here complained about the spending. They're just complaining louder now as the spending is 3x as bad since Obama took office.

Modus Ponens

09-13-2010, 10:17 AM

Were you a member here during the Bush years? I didn't think so, cause you would then know that MANY of the conservatives here complained about the spending. They're just complaining louder now as the spending is 3x as bad since Obama took office.

Oh, spare me. Every Republican nowadays covers their hypocrisy over supporting Reagan and Bush-era debt spending by protesting "Oh, I spoke out against it at the time!!" Just like in the early Clinton years, here early in another new Democrat administration following on another cash-guzzling Republican one, we have all these people suddenly getting religion over deficits and spending. It's all right to tax-cut and spend to high heaven when you're in office - but once a Democrat gets in there - ?! Oh, then it's "I don't recognize my country" and "We've got to get away from the big-spending liberals!!" You may have fooled yourself with this crap; but that's where it ends.

If the independents - who as any analyst knows, are the least informed of all voters - reward you again for your lies, the country only deserves to go further down the path of decline that you have put us on.

jimnyc

09-13-2010, 10:22 AM

Oh, spare me. Every Republican nowadays covers their hypocrisy over supporting Reagan and Bush-era debt spending by protesting "Oh, I spoke out against it at the time!!" Just like in the early Clinton years, here early in another new Democrat administration following on another cash-guzzling Republican one, we have all these people suddenly getting religion over deficits and spending. It's all right to tax-cut and spend to high heaven when you're in office - but once a Democrat gets in there - ?! Oh, then it's "I don't recognize my country" and "We've got to get away from the big-spending liberals!!" You may have fooled yourself with this crap; but that's where it ends.

If the independents - who as any analyst knows, are the least informed of all voters - reward you again for your lies, the country only deserves to go further down the path of decline that you have put us on.

Again, speak of where you might have been before, but you look ridiculous coming in here and telling the members what you THINK they stated or complained about, when in reality you have no clue. If you want to dig up old posts and complain about "reality", that's one thing, but just making things up about the member base here without having a clue what took place during the time you specify is retarded.

I'll complain, and have complained, about out of control spending regardless of who was doing the spending. Conservative or liberal, democrat or republican - I'm tired of the out of control spending and I know the most prominent conservatives posting on this board feel the same way.

Modus Ponens

09-13-2010, 12:06 PM

Again, speak of where you might have been before, but you look ridiculous coming in here and telling the members what you THINK they stated or complained about, when in reality you have no clue.

Again, spare me. You know very well that the proper domain of this debate is not confined to this one board. It is relevant at the level of the whole country. And there can be no doubt that Republicanism, as we have it in America today, is hypocritical through and through.

You know, I'm so tired of all these Cons going on with their line "Oh, I'm not a Republican - I'm a conservative." You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of all those people out there who will say "Oh, I'm not religious - I'm spiritual." Yeah - in other words, you want to take credit for being a true believer, without having to take responsibility for what your actual organization gets up to. In the end, I don't give a rip what you call yourself; only how you vote.

And if you voted for George Bush - twice - then you, personally, bear more responsibility for our current crisis than President Obama does. Not that you'd ever acknowledge your responsibilities; like your hero Dick Cheney said, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

revelarts

09-13-2010, 12:23 PM

Again, spare me. You know very well that the proper domain of this debate is not confined to this one board. It is relevant at the level of the whole country. And there can be no doubt that Republicanism, as we have it in America today, is hypocritical through and through.

You know, I'm so tired of all these Cons going on with their line "Oh, I'm not a Republican - I'm a conservative." You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of all those people out there who will say "Oh, I'm not religious - I'm spiritual." Yeah - in other words, you want to take credit for being a true believer, without having to take responsibility for what your actual organization gets up to. In the end, I don't give a rip what you call yourself; only how you vote.

And if you voted for George Bush - twice - then you, personally, bear more responsibility for our current crisis than President Obama does. Not that you'd ever acknowledge your responsibilities; like your hero Dick Cheney said, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

You know you got a a bit of a point there.

I voted twice for Bush, the 2nd time I was holding my nose but I did it. and now I do regret it. I voted for the constitution party last election. Did you vote for Obama. Will you take responsibility for your mess? Did you buy the "Hope and Change" like I bought the... uh.. whatever W was selling.

At this point I'd almost vote for Nader myself, if i thought he had a chance. Just to get the Democrats and Republicans out of the presidential seat and shake them to the core.

Neither conservatives nor "real Liberals" are getting what they want. But we keep acting like there's no choice but to vote for the Dems and repubs . Bull! I won't vote for them unless they show they are real conservatives by their actions and votes. we are way to for gone to play games with these corporate paid liars.

jimnyc

09-13-2010, 12:33 PM

Modus Ponens

09-13-2010, 01:56 PM

You know you got a a bit of a point there.

I voted twice for Bush, the 2nd time I was holding my nose but I did it. and now I do regret it. I voted for the constitution party last election. Did you vote for Obama. Will you take responsibility for your mess? Did you buy the "Hope and Change" like I bought the... uh.. whatever W was selling.

I certainly voted for Obama, and I'm proud that I did. I am convinced that he kept the crash from spiralling into another Great Depression. He had to make politically unpopular choices to accomplish that (the bailouts, mainly), but that's what real leaders do.

Like many ("real") liberals, I'm disappointed he wasn't able to produce a more robust health-care bill, but I appreciate the political limitations he's had to labor under. Perhaps unlike most liberals, I support the Afghan surge; but it looks now almost surely like it was a losing bet. Iraq is increasingly looking like a lost bet, too. I think it's preposterous, however, to try and pin the blame for either of those fiascoes on Obama.

Though all the Kool-Aid drinkers and liars on the right will deny it till their dying breath, Obama really did try non-partisanship with the Republicans on important domestic legislation, especially the health-bill. For his open hand of cooperation, all he got in return was the clenched fist of Republican obstructionism. History will record that. Simple example: even before there was discussion in the House about the composition of a stimulus-package, the Republicans informed him they were going to vote against it as a bloc. To attract some Republican support, the Democrats loaded the stimulus with tax cuts; but to no avail.

The promise of a no-drama, non-partisan government was part of Obama's Hope and Change theme, and he delivered on his promises. He can't be blamed for the Republicans taking their ball and going home.

On the foreign-policy side, Hope and Change concerned trying to change our image abroad, for the purposes of trying to better meet our foreign-policy objectives. Unfortunately, Bush Junior's foreign policy screwed the pooch so bad, people still are not interested in co-operating with us.

One definite part of the Hope and Change theme that I see Obama following through on, is goddam ending Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-rich. It is on that subject (and on their opposition to the finance bill and on opposition to a new round of taxcut-stimulus for small businesses) that Republican and "conservative" hypocrisy is most glaring. Tea-party types go on all day and all night about fiscal responsibility, but all they propose to get there are spending cuts which they can cynically call for now, when they are out of power. Another obvious way of balancing the books is raising taxes. Oh, but that doesn't pay politically - and of course it hurts their pocketbooks. It's hypocrisy like this, hypocrisy that the unthinking masses of independents look set to actually reward in November, that makes me sick to my stomach.

At this point I'd almost vote for Nader myself, if i thought he had a chance. Just to get the Democrats and Republicans out of the presidential seat and shake them to the core.

Really concerned about the deficit? Fine. The best way to reduce the debt - unless you want to slash entitlements and pull the plug on Grandma (be my guest, Cons!) - is to raise the marginal tax rate to at least 40% and reduce the Pentagon budget by 40%. That would probably yield at least 300 billion more in national income per year. And I'd be all for earmarking that specifically for debt reduction. But anyone who talks about reducing the deficit and/or retiring the debt, without raising taxes, is lying to your face.

PostmodernProphet

09-13-2010, 03:10 PM

Yep, people have been such sheep thinking there's a difference between the two Party's. Ronnie was the only bump in the road, other than his Administration there isn't a difference between the two party's.

The ass kicking the GOP got was an overwhelming rejection of 'Dubya's Progressive Liberalism, now the Dem's are going to get their ass kicking with the rejection of Obama's Progressive Liberalism. The ones that believe it's a vote for the Republican platform it shows just how clueless they are.

I think you're wrong....we've had two presidents that would qualify as "different"....l consider them examples of postmodernism in politics....one was Reagan, the other was Clinton.....

red states rule

09-13-2010, 06:15 PM

This whole board truly is little but a mouthpiece for the conservative Id. I just love how we heard crickets from all you Cons about spending during Bush's years in office; it's only when an (illegal alien Muslim?) Democrat gets in office (on the heels of a total economic meltdown that happened on your watch) that you types go ape-crazy, smearing your crap on the walls.

Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. And now, because the president was not able to wave a magic wand and clean up your mess, his party is going to get punished at the polls. Because we know that the economy is what it's all about. If jobs were coming back, people wouldn't be buying your same-old hypocritical Republican arguments. If you don't see that, you've truly drunk the Kool-Aid.

But jobs aren't coming back in force right now; and the reason for that is not Tarp, is not the stimulus, is not Obamacare. The reason is old-fashioned plain as day: Since the Reagan era, supply-side happy Republicanism has, more than any other factor, fostered America's credit-card mentality, inciting us to live beyond our means. We rang up huge private debts, even as we accepted tax cuts without any decrease in services. You complain about the culture, but that is your culture - the "buy now, pay later" mentality. And now we are paying. Your culture caused this catastrophe, and you have the appalling hypocrisy to blame the last guy left holding the bag?!

Of course you do. Hypocrisy is the Con's only ideology. In the name of "liberty" you set out to promote the individual and smash the common good.

Well, you ought to be proud of yourselves. Mission Accomplished.

Allow me to clue you in on a few facts

1) Dems have spent over $1 trillion to "stimulate" jobs and the economy has lost jobs. Most of the stimulus was sent to states to keep government employees on the job. As the stimulus money runs out the states are back where they were

2) Poverty is at an all time high udner Obama

4) Foreclosures continue to rise as more people lose their jobs

5) Employers are sitting on their cash and not hiring because of the pending tax increases and increased costs due to Obamacare. In fact people are seeing their cost of insurance rise because of Obamacare

6) Under Reagan the US economy had the largest period of peacetime economic growth in US history

7) Obama and the Dems are tanking in the polls because Obama has been to busy with his social agenga and not the economy

OK, your turn

Modus Ponens

09-13-2010, 06:49 PM

Allow me to clue you in on a few facts

1) Dems have spent over $1 trillion to "stimulate" jobs and the economy has lost jobs. Most of the stimulus was sent to states to keep government employees on the job. As the stimulus money runs out the states are back where they were

Democrats hoped - with reason - that they economy would have recovered sufficiently by now to perform its natural function of job-creation. It was a bet that, it turns out, did not pay off. But informed observers have noted that the bailouts and the stimulus kept the economy from going into a free-fall panic; and hence at least averted the worst-case scenario we faced two winters ago: the Great Depression II. Historians will give Obama the credit for this. Now we are faced with a long period of anemic growth. We really shouldn't be surprised; analysts looking at the U.S. financial position back in the first Bush administration - when Bush was deficit-spending like mad - predicted this.

2) Poverty is at an all time high udner Obama

It was at an all-time high under Bush, too. Ooops - except that wasn't when we were suffering from the mother of all Recessions.

4) Foreclosures continue to rise as more people lose their jobs

True. The whole dynamic traces back to Bush-era greed. Including the greed of average citizens.

5) Employers are sitting on their cash and not hiring because of the pending tax increases and increased costs due to Obamacare. In fact people are seeing their cost of insurance rise because of Obamacare

Employers aren't hiring because they're waiting for demand to pick up. But - even with interest rates suppressed - consumers are tapped; the consumer isn't going to be able to come back in force any time soon. So, it would be foolish for businesses - at least the ones that have survived the downturn so far - to expand capacity in such an uncertain environment. As for tax rates - give me a break. In America, they are simply too low to thwart job creation. A much bigger problem, is that our talent for innovation is sputtering. In the 'aughts, the biggest sectors - by far - of job growth were in health fields and in finance. Those are service sectors, and not very productive. We seem to have lost our ability to create whole new industries around new products. There was a time when we could have played this role with green energy; but now we have slipped and China has surged ahead.

6) Under Reagan the US economy had the largest period of peacetime economic growth in US history

...and the largest peacetime expansion of the U.S. debt in our history. If you look at the ten years before 1982, you will see an American economy snakebit by the first big postwar inflation, and energy insecurity. It was a long period of under-performance for the American economy. After recessions, you typically see a surge of growth as the economy snaps back to meet the default level of demand. To me, the 80's boom had little to do with anything Reagan did. It was a cyclical effect - which Reagan got the credit for.

7) Obama and the Dems are tanking in the polls because Obama has been to busy with his social agenga and not the economy

Clinton-era Democrats, Obama especially, have learned to appreciate the power of markets, and the vital role the market plays in creating jobs. The simple truth is, that Presidents have more power to hurt an economy than help it. Like a doctor with a crashing patient in the emergency room, Obama rescued the economy from a complete meltdown; now, the patient has to recover as best he can - there's only limited things the doctor can do to speed up the process.

But why bother with all these complexities? We all know that you Cons don't do "nuance." You're just glad to see that things are still bad, so you can make your grab for power this November. It's all you really care about.

red states rule

09-13-2010, 07:12 PM

How could Dems "hope" the stimulus would create jobs in the private sector when most of the stimulus was pork and welfare handouts?

Here are some examples of what was in the stimulus bill

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Re46Fg98U2g?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Re46Fg98U2g?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Eh, Bush is not President any longer, but that has not stopped Obama

Pres Regan tried to cut spending. He made a deal with Dems for some tax increases in exchange for spending cuts. Dems took the tax increases but lnever did the spending cuts

Libs want to ignore Reagan won reelection in 1984 with a 49 state victory

Employers are not hiring due to the uncertanity of Obama's policies. People are seeing their health care cost go up, and employers will not pay the increased cost of hiring until they know Obama's polcies are repealed

With is what a makority of voters want

Gaffer

09-13-2010, 07:14 PM

You can tell its getting close to election time, the liberal hacks are out in force. virgil clones popping up everywhere. And all they do is solidify my determination to never vote for a liberal.

red states rule

09-13-2010, 07:17 PM

You can tell its getting close to election time, the liberal hacks are out in force. virgil clones popping up everywhere. And all they do is solidify my determination to never vote for a liberal.

I once applied for membership with the local Democrat party here in PA

They turned me down

I passed the mental test

Modus Ponens

09-13-2010, 11:17 PM

You can tell its getting close to election time, the liberal hacks are out in force. virgil clones popping up everywhere. And all they do is solidify my determination to never vote for a liberal.

Ladies and gentlemen: We get the government we deserve. The last two posts are exhibit A of this simple truth.

Pagan

09-13-2010, 11:53 PM

Ladies and gentlemen: We get the government we deserve. The last two posts are exhibit A of this simple truth.

That I agree with, they're too blinded by their own Party Politics to step back and take an objective view.

But I also highly disagree with you about Ronnie, he spurred industry to instead of hide or off shore but to invest back in the U.S. I do fault him for not sticking with cutting spending, personally I believe the assassination attempt took a lot out of him.

Tax's only serve to hurt the poor and benefit the wealthy for the wealthy have the resources and influence to hide, offshore and buy influence. That is reality, the poor pay the tax's and the rich don't. You cannot stimulate an economy by attempting to tax it into prosperity, it's never worked and it never will.

Also the obsession with cheap and immediate gratification as with off shoring everything and having full blown "Free Trade" is insane. What has and is happening is manufacturing and professional educated jobs are going offshore due to it's "cheap". While immediate gains may be seen in the long term we're cutting our own throats. A company here in the U.S. with it's labor, environmental and quality controls cannot compete with the cost of labor overseas. For example a coder here in the U.S. will rack up $80-$100k in collage loans then with the cost of living here they cannot compete with a coder in India which pays roughly $10 an hour. Also Manufacturing, China uses its Laogai which is where they place their dissidents and people who commit crimes like literally handing out Bibles, it's a Slave Labor Camp much like Stalin's Gulags to manufacture goods for export. Again U.S. company's cannot compete with that so they either go overseas or go out of business. Tariffs are there for a reason, used in excess with hurt the economy but at the same time the extreme of no Tariffs also do serious damage.

Also we have way too much influence of multi national corps in government, they buy the influence and stifle any and all competition. Like for example Haliburtan, they are the largest Contractor along with the Carlyle group but yet their corporate HQ's are in Dubia.

Laws and regulations are there for a reason and should be applied fairly and equally across the board. Like for one any Federal and State contracting should be with U.S. company's period, did you know that 1040 tax forms are done in India? Also Unemployment and Welfare call centers are also outsourced overseas, doesn't anyone see something wrong with this picture?

We've got a lot of things to fix in this country but jacking up the tax's and oppressive spending bullshit like the government take over of health care is insane. The TARP which Bush started and Obama is expanding is such a fucking mess, hell Banks like Wells Fargo took the money and cut employee's here, outsourced the jobs overseas and used bail out money to invest overseas. The money should have been spent on infrastructure like building roads, rebuilding our aging bridges, communication networks, etc. NOT bailing out banks, Wall Street or exploding government even more with bullshit healthcare that WE CANNOT AFFORD.

Face it, we're in all sense insolvent, it just hasn't caught up yet but it will soon, very soon. Unless we cut our spending NOW, stop this massive sucking of professional and manufacturing jobs overseas with only leaving service industry jobs here we are fucked, royally fucked. But the right and the left are too busy pointing the finger at each other instead of focusing on fixing the problem and accepting responsibility for their part of creating this mess.............