Finally the Senate admits: Even if "automatic cuts" take place, nothing will be cut!

[Little-Acorn]

Finally a Senator (Rand Paul, R-KY) has publicly let the cat out of the bag. At least, for those who didn't already know one of the more poorly-kept secrets of Washington DC.

As you know, the Supercommittee is required to make its recommendations by Wed., Nov. 23. Actually, that means they must be made by TODAY, Nov. 21, since any such recommendations must be published for 48 hours before being voted on. It's pretty clear no recommendations are forthcoming today. And if the Supercommittee can't agree on recommendations, then "sequestration" (automatic cuts) will go into place, to start on Jan. 1, 2013.

But today, a Senator finally let the cat out of the bag. Even the "automatic cuts", aren't cuts at all, as you and I know them. They do NOT mean that we will spend less in 2013, than in 2012. They are simply announcements that the forecast budgets will go up, but less than planned.

Sen. Rand Paul used Defense as an example, saying that where Defense spending was slated to increase by 23% over the next ten years, if the "automatic cuts" go into place, then it will only go up by 16% instead.

Yes, folks, even through all the screaming over the last year of "cutting spending" by Democrats and Republicans alike (even including newly-elected TEA Party Republicans who have held the line against tax increases)... none of them even intended to actually cut spending at all. They simply used the phrase "spending cuts" to fool all of us into believing that's what they meant, so that we would keep voting for them.

There has never been a single CUT offered. Ever. Over the entire charade of "negotiations" these many years.

Just reductions in the rates of increase, which is a very different thing.

The article below, links to a CNN videwo where Candy Crowley is interviewing Sen. Rand Paul. At the 2:00 minute mark, Paul explains that even the "automatic cuts" aren't cuts at all.

Have a nice day.

-----------------------------------------------

http://thisiscommonsense.com/

The Un-Super Committee

by Paul Jacob

(snip)

“I think we need to be honest about it,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul pointed out yesterday on CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bes...paul-11-20.cnn ). “Spending is still rising under any of these plans. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”

(See the 2:00 minute mark in the video at the above URL -Ed.)

“The curve of spending in our country is going up at about 7.5 percent a year,” Sen. Paul went on to explain. “If you were to freeze spending for ten years, no cuts . . . they would call that a $9 trillion cut.”

So, as we face a debt crisis, the Super Committee couldn’t even manage to lessen their planned massive increases in spending.

Or talk straight with the American people.

Why? Perhaps because official Washington knows that spending is the real source of their power.

[fj1200]

This would certainly be a start:

H.R. 920: Zero-Baseline Budget Act of 2011

[Little-Acorn]

This would certainly be a start:

H.R. 920: Zero-Baseline Budget Act of 2011

What are the chances that will be passed and signed into law?

[fj1200]

Slim and none and Slim just got taken out by a Predator drone without his due process rights...

But then if a POTUS candidate put it on his list of things to do, he and it would have much better chances IMHO.

[Little-Acorn]

But then if a POTUS candidate put it on his list of things to do, he and it would have much better chances IMHO.

Right.

If one guy has nothing, and the next guy has twice as much as the first guy, remind me how much the second guy has?

[Thunderknuckles]

Right.

If one guy has nothing, and the next guy has twice as much as the first guy, remind me how much the second guy has?

There you go confusing things by bringing math into a budgeting conversation

[revelarts]

They've been playing the Cut really means less increase game for 20 yrs.

But then if a POTUS candidate put it on his list of things to do, he and it would have much better chances IMHO

But the only person that would honestly consider a real budget is Ron Paul, NO one else has the integrity for the follow through.

but he's craaaaazy

But the super committee, is a failure, So will the unconstitutional Committee of 13 Budget Czars be disbanded. or will they keep the monstosity

[Kathianne]

They've been playing the Cut really means less increase game for 20 yrs.

But the only person that would honestly consider a real budget is Ron Paul, NO one else has the integrity for the follow through.

but he's craaaaazy

But the super committee, is a failure, So will the unconstitutional Committee of 13 Budget Czars be disbanded. or will they keep the monstosity

He's crazy, xenophobic, and racist. Nuff said.

[Little-Acorn]

There you go confusing things by bringing math into a budgeting conversation

Bless me Father, for I have sinned.

[red states rule]

He's crazy, xenophobic, and racist. Nuff said.

and those are his postive traits Kat

What about his negative traits?

[revelarts]

Which of these republican candidates do you think will follow thru on a fight for any reality ie -real numbers- based budget cuts.

Romney
Cain
Bachmann
Gingirch
Huntsman
Perry

Which one has a record of doing so?

[Little-Acorn]

Which of these Presidential candidates do you think will follow thru on a fight for any reality ie -real numbers- based budget cuts.

Romney
Cain
Bachmann
Gingirch
Huntsman
Perry
Obama
Hillary

Which one has a record of doing so?

Fixed it for you.

And my reply, in order of their likelihood of sticking to real cuts:

Gingrich
Cain
Bachmann


Huntsman
Perry
Romney

Hillary


Obama

-------------------------------------

And the question you carefully DIDN'T ask:

Which of these candidates are most likely to move the Federal government toward reasonable size (i.e. much smaller than it is now) while protecting our (and our allies') rights both here and abroad in ways consistent with the intent of the Constitution?

Gingrich
Cain (tied with Gingrich)
Perry
Bachmann (tied with Perry)

Huntsman


Romney

(no other listed candidates will do this at all)

----------------------------------

And the third question, which you were also careful to avoid asking:

Which candidate(s) will do all these things perfectly with no flaws whatsoever?

(Answer: none, but one of them will become President, so who shall it be?)

[revelarts]

I didn't ask those questions becuase they were off topic of the thread.
I tried to narrow it to the budget and economy but fine we can broaden it too.

newt is your top guy, so i have to assume he's a better conservative than the rest overall.

I love to hear newt talk most of time. he talks a pretty good conservative game but what he does and says in less public venues is not my idea of conservatism or freedom.

I remember Newt back in the contract with America days I was very happy with the TALK.
and giving credit where credit is due they did Balance the budget, i have to take my hat off to Newt, the congress and even Clinton for signing .
But after that what did newt show me of the contract, they were going among other things to:
-impose term limits for service in Washington, -never happened-
-an end to pork-barrel legislation, dismantling the "good old boy " system of governing -never happened-
-and sacking the practice of tacking "non-germane " legislative actions onto spending bills at the last minute. -Choke HA never happened-


business as usual on those fronts just the republicans doing it instead of the deems.
And Here's a list of the "conservative Newt G.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-...ve-you-decide/

- Continually supported increased federal spending.
- voted in one of the most-pork laden, expensive transportation bill in history
- Big supporter of Foreign Aid — even to Soviets through the Export-Import Bank.
- In one year (1994-1995) Gingrich voted for nearly $45 billion in foreign aid.
- He helped push through Federally-funded loan guarantees to Communist China.
- Voted to give billions of dollars to United Nations “peacekeeping” operations;
- Bailed out savings and loan institutions in 1991. $40B Bank bailout
-03/–/1993 – He was “passionately in favor” of sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
-04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
-02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.

this is the guy we can trust to reduce spending and reduce the size of gov't.
I don't think so.

How about American jobs?
-Voted for NAFTA,
-03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
i here ross perot "Giant sucking sound of awl the merician jobs gowin to Mexico Larry..."

How about lil things like freedom other conservative stuff?
-09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
-04/10/1995 – He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
-02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
-04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
-02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
-12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
-11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals
- Supported spending $30B for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.
-04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.
- Chicken Hawk He was a draft-dodger during the Vietnam War, yet pushed aggressive foreign interventionism his entire political career.
- Urged the House to repeal the War Powers Act and give the Presidency more power.
- Urged Clinton to expand military presence in Bosnia.
-11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
-11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”
-10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.


That's doesn't spell conservative or smaller gov't to me very much at all but if you think more war with 3rd world countries is what REAL conservationism/Republicanism is your so your welcome to your opinion, Newt is all for war with Iran, Korea and terrorist and scientist and who knows who else.

[logroller]

I didn't ask those questions becuase they were off topic of the thread.
I tried to narrow it to the budget and economy but fine we can broaden it too.

newt is your top guy, so i have to assume he's a better conservative than the rest overall.

I love to hear newt talk most of time. he talks a pretty good conservative game but what he does and says in less public venues is not my idea of conservatism or freedom.

I remember Newt back in the contract with America days I was very happy with the TALK.
and giving credit where credit is due they did Balance the budget, i have to take my hat off to Newt, the congress and even Clinton for signing .
But after that what did newt show me of the contract, they were going among other things to:
-impose term limits for service in Washington, -never happened-
-an end to pork-barrel legislation, dismantling the "good old boy " system of governing -never happened-
-and sacking the practice of tacking "non-germane " legislative actions onto spending bills at the last minute. -Choke HA never happened-


business as usual on those fronts just the republicans doing it instead of the deems.
And Here's a list of the "conservative Newt G.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-...ve-you-decide/

- Continually supported increased federal spending.
- voted in one of the most-pork laden, expensive transportation bill in history
- Big supporter of Foreign Aid — even to Soviets through the Export-Import Bank.
- In one year (1994-1995) Gingrich voted for nearly $45 billion in foreign aid.
- He helped push through Federally-funded loan guarantees to Communist China.
- Voted to give billions of dollars to United Nations “peacekeeping” operations;
- Bailed out savings and loan institutions in 1991. $40B Bank bailout
-03/–/1993 – He was “passionately in favor” of sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
-04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
-02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.

this is the guy we can trust to reduce spending and reduce the size of gov't.
I don't think so.

How about American jobs?
-Voted for NAFTA,
-03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
i here ross perot "Giant sucking sound of awl the merician jobs gowin to Mexico Larry..."

How about lil things like freedom other conservative stuff?
-09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
-04/10/1995 – He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
-02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
-04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
-02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
-12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
-11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals
- Supported spending $30B for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.
-04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.
- Chicken Hawk He was a draft-dodger during the Vietnam War, yet pushed aggressive foreign interventionism his entire political career.
- Urged the House to repeal the War Powers Act and give the Presidency more power.
- Urged Clinton to expand military presence in Bosnia.
-11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
-11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”
-10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.


That's doesn't spell conservative or smaller gov't to me very much at all but if you think more war with 3rd world countries is what REAL conservationism/Republicanism is your so your welcome to your opinion, Newt is all for war with Iran, Korea and terrorist and scientist and who knows who else.

There you go confusing things bringing facts into a political conversation. Same on you rev.

[revelarts]

There you go confusing things bringing facts into a political conversation. Same on you rev.

we're tea party liken republicans log, we think about our candidates and do not go off on just emotion and bombast like democrats , and we vote our core values, Constitution, Small gov't, less taxes, less gov't intrusion, national sovereignty, Freedom etc.

And Newt's not a crazy, xenophobic, racist so he's got that going for him too.