Local Republican Reps criticize lack of spending reform in...

Author Message
 Posted 2/12/2013 6:42:08 PM
Supreme Being

Supreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme Being

Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 5:51:39 AM
Posts: 16,157, Visits: 391
2/12/2013 12:00:00 AM
Local Republican Reps criticize lack of spending reform in Obama’s address
Local Republican Reps criticize lack of spending reform in Obama’s address
Post #208567
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/12/2013 7:09:46 PM
Master Contributor

Master ContributorMaster ContributorMaster ContributorMaster ContributorMaster ContributorMaster ContributorMaster ContributorMaster ContributorMaster Contributor

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/2/2007 2:50:00 AM
Posts: 806, Visits: 0
When CONGRESS fails to act, sequestration will occur.  Soldiers will have to be re-trained as civilians.  Neither Coats or Stutzman have a plan for this scenario, but just point fingers, when it was CONGRESS that decided on sequestration.

Coats and Stutzman would rather point fingers at Obama, when it is CONGRESS which is supposed to make the budget cuts.  Could they tell us where they would cut, if not by sequestration?  Truth is the House Republicans are so fractured that Marlin's tea party group doesn't mind sequestration, so Marlin's tears for veterans seem like those of the figurative "crocodile".

And could Coats and Stutzman tell us how they would create jobs? Maybe Obama's ideas tonight might trigger some creativity.........infrastructure improvement, global warming mitigation, etc.  Don't let the Chinese out-compete us!

Some Libertarians might not think that our economy is based upon consumption........I disagree.  And consumption is based upon a job with a decent wage/salary; right now we should, like Barack, agree on DC creating the environment for further job creation.  I suppose Libertarians are all so rich that they don't really care if the other guy can consume.............shall we live off the land?
Post #208571
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/12/2013 7:20:01 PM
Supreme Being

Supreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/8/2008 5:30:59 PM
Posts: 5,732, Visits: 0
The Democrat controlled Senate has not passed a budget in over four years.

By law, they are required to do so every year.

IMPEACH HARRY REID.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT76H31up2LixZoaZtiUd4CUxmTZqYupX_xXOsmMCspnxh-RvBY9A
Post #208572
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/12/2013 7:24:53 PM
Supreme Being

Supreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/8/2008 5:30:59 PM
Posts: 5,732, Visits: 0

Let it Burn: The Sequester Is The Only Thing In DC Actually Cutting Spending

—Ace

I think @benk84 linked this this morning. I need a post, so I'll link it again.

Fear not. As always in Washington when there is talk of cutting spending, most of the hysteria is baseless. The nearby table from the House Budget Committee shows that programs are hardly starved for money. In Mr. Obama's first two years, while private businesses and households were spending less and deleveraging, federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84% with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets.Spending growth has slowed since Republicans took the House in 2011. Still, from 2008-2013 federal discretionary spending has climbed to $1.062 trillion from $933 billion—an increase of 13.9%. Domestic programs grew by 16.6%, much faster than the 11.6% for national security.

Transportation funding alone climbed to $69.5 billion in 2010 with the stimulus from $10.7 billion in 2008, and in 2013 the budget is still $17.9 billion, or about 67% higher. Education spending more than doubled in Mr. Obama's first two years and is up 18.6% to $68.1 billion from 2008-2013.

But wait—this doesn't include the recent Hurricane Sandy relief bill. Less than half of that $59 billion is going to storm victims while the rest is a spending end-run around the normal appropriations process. Add that money to the tab, and total discretionary domestic spending is up closer to 30% from 2008-2013. The sequester would claw that back by all of about 5%.

More troublesome are the cuts in defense, but for security not economic reasons. The sequester cuts the Pentagon budget by 7%. This fits Mr. Obama's evident plan to raid the military to pay for social programs like ObamaCare.

...

The most disingenuous White House claim is that the sequester will hurt the economy. Reality check: The cuts amount to about 0.5% of GDP. The theory that any and all government spending is "stimulus" has been put to the test over the last five years, and the result has been the weakest recovery in 75 years and trillion-dollar annual deficits.

I don't care, Obama's my dad. Chris Rock says so.

Post #208573
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/12/2013 7:40:01 PM
Supreme Being

Supreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/8/2008 5:30:59 PM
Posts: 5,732, Visits: 0
Another lehman that believes in rainbows and unicorns?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRy_pZ4SaAJK64yUFbb6tb4AZaieU9Ncp1fVdcZq0K-npjzZN0Y

http://sonofsoylentgreen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/foolaid.jpg?w=250&h=260

Edited: 2/12/2013 7:55:55 PM by Infidel
Post #208574
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/12/2013 7:45:50 PM
Supreme Being

Supreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/8/2008 5:30:59 PM
Posts: 5,732, Visits: 0
"And could Coats and Stutzman tell us how they would create jobs?"

I don't know how old you where when JFK reduced taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Maybe you were still in diapers so maybe you can't remember.

You can google it if you want to learn something.

Hint, 
unicorns and rainbows are no path to job creation.



 

Edited: 2/12/2013 7:56:43 PM by Infidel
Post #208576
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/13/2013 12:02:29 AM
Supreme Being

Supreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme Being

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 1/9/2008 7:46:49 AM
Posts: 3,806, Visits: 255
jclehman50 (2/13/2013)
When CONGRESS fails to act, sequestration will occur.  Soldiers will have to be re-trained as civilians.  Neither Coats or Stutzman have a plan for this scenario, but just point fingers, when it was CONGRESS that decided on sequestration.


Then you need to talk to Harry Reid.  The House has passed budgets.  The Senate has failed to vote on them.
Post #208580
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/13/2013 1:46:24 AM
Junior Member

Junior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior Member

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/8/2010 6:48:31 PM
Posts: 64, Visits: 0
jclehman50 (2/13/2013)
When CONGRESS fails to act, sequestration will occur.  Soldiers will have to be re-trained as civilians.  Neither Coats or Stutzman have a plan for this scenario, but just point fingers, when it was CONGRESS that decided on sequestration.

Coats and Stutzman would rather point fingers at Obama, when it is CONGRESS which is supposed to make the budget cuts.  Could they tell us where they would cut, if not by sequestration?  Truth is the House Republicans are so fractured that Marlin's tea party group doesn't mind sequestration, so Marlin's tears for veterans seem like those of the figurative "crocodile".

And could Coats and Stutzman tell us how they would create jobs? Maybe Obama's ideas tonight might trigger some creativity.........infrastructure improvement, global warming mitigation, etc.  Don't let the Chinese out-compete us!

Some Libertarians might not think that our economy is based upon consumption........I disagree.  And consumption is based upon a job with a decent wage/salary; right now we should, like Barack, agree on DC creating the environment for further job creation.  I suppose Libertarians are all so rich that they don't really care if the other guy can consume.............shall we live off the land?
 
 
 
 
Fear not, most soldiers are already "trained as civilians".  And while I concede the need for a strong military, the NET economic result of paying soldiers is negative, at least in the way that our economy is supposed to work. (you can check with countries like North Korea on this)  It's the same principle as pumping "stimulus" dollars into the system.  Because there is not any actual production of anything except spending.

Edited: 2/13/2013 4:39:11 AM by dennisn1
Post #208581
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/13/2013 1:50:33 AM
Junior Member

Junior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior Member

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/8/2010 6:48:31 PM
Posts: 64, Visits: 0
Infidel (2/13/2013)
Another lehman that believes in rainbows and unicorns?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRy_pZ4SaAJK64yUFbb6tb4AZaieU9Ncp1fVdcZq0K-npjzZN0Y

http://sonofsoylentgreen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/foolaid.jpg?w=250&h=260
 
We all know that AL Gore overstated his case at the very least, but what is it in the fundamental makeup of the right wing that makes it so hard to admit that man has an impact on his environment?  The only way that I can see it relating to the platform is that stopping to be concerned about the environment might lower a profit margin or two.  As a moderate thinking independent, I really do wonder about this...
Post #208582
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 2/13/2013 1:58:53 AM
Guru-in-Training

Guru-in-TrainingGuru-in-TrainingGuru-in-TrainingGuru-in-TrainingGuru-in-TrainingGuru-in-TrainingGuru-in-TrainingGuru-in-TrainingGuru-in-Training

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/16/2010 1:13:00 AM
Posts: 1,007, Visits: 0
dennisn1 (2/13/2013)
Infidel (2/13/2013)
Another lehman that believes in rainbows and unicorns?



 
We all know that AL Gore overstated his case at the very least, but what is it in the fundamental makeup of the right wing that makes it so hard to admit that man has an impact on his environment?  The only way that I can see it relating to the platform is that stopping to be concerned about the environment might lower a profit margin or two.  As a moderate thinking independent, I really do wonder about this...


The earth has warmed and cooled since it began and it will continue to do so.  When is the left going to finally realize that the politicians are just using the issue to take your money and control you? 
Post #208583
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook


Reading This Topic

Expand / Collapse