Congressman looks very parliamentary
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
Sounds like he is simply tired of the usual obstructionist right wing BS that exists in the US government.
The Republicans are looking for only ONE single concession from the Democratic majority: In order to fund WHATEVER, cut spending elsewhere.
No irrational temper tantrum from irrational spendthifts like the appropriately named WIENER changes that fact.
No irrational temper tantrum from irrational spendthifts like the appropriately named WIENER changes that fact.
He could still have expressed that sentiment in a slightly more civilized way.
The republican are no better. Just look at the US spending sprees under Reagan and the Bushes. No difference.
And what's the Tea party going to do? Slash taxes a la Bostonian? Bush tried that and the debt grew even faster.
The focus in the US has to be not more tax cuts, but more spending cuts. Until spending is brought under control, tax cuts will only make things worse as Bush had proven.
Are you sure about that? Seeing that Palin is a big military spender I'm sure, and that she has much support in the Teac Party, my guess is that the Tea Party is not as united as one would think. You likely have the Ron-Paul-type Tea-partiers who genuinely want to cut spending across the board (though I'd worry Ron Paul would likely slash taxes too much too unless I've misread him, but at least he's serious about spending cuts) and Palin-types who want to cut taxes even more yet still believe money for the military grows on trees.
Believe it or not, that may be harder to say than you think. For example, Ron Paul, though a member of the Republican Party, actually has some support from self-identified Democrats, and has even built coalitions with at least one Democrat from across the floor to bring the troops home now!
That being said, some fiscal conservatives among the Tea party movement might not be so gun ho about tax cuts, but are more concerned with spending cuts and balancing the budget. Those Tea-Partiers are likely to be less blindly partisan and so more unpredictable in how they'll vote.
Don't forget, Clinton, a Democrat, was the last President to actually balance the budget, short-lived and moderate as it may have been. Fiscal conservatives would vote for a fiscally conservative Democrat over a fiscally liberal Republican. Palin, though very much in favour of a strong military and global intervention, is far from a fiscal conservative. She's very much a fiscal liberal.
Cut taxes, borrow and spend your way to prosperity. Not good for the long-term development of the society of course, but as a short-term vote-getter for a four-year term, it's genius among greedy masses.
What did they propose to be cut?
Would the honorable members of the right be ok if they cut the faith-based initiatives?
White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tax-wise or spending-wise? With US government spending and debt as they are now, they can't afford to cut taxes anymore. Theyr taxes are already cut to the bone considering the circumstances.
As for spending cuts, that's a good question.
I remember in one video how Ron Paul talked about how bringing the troops home could help both Democrats and Republicans achieve their goals. Republicans want to reduce the size of government and Democrats want to help the poor. Neither is possible in a state of continual warfare.
In fact I remember in one video how though Ron Paul opposes big government, he did concede that it was still preferable, if we had to have big government, to have it go towards benefiting people at least rather than having it wasted on war.At least here we have one republican who acknowledges that the military-industrial complex is itself a part of big government, something most Republicans deny.
Same crap, repeated time after time ad nauseum:
Clinton balanced he budget.
Yeah, right!
In balancing the budget Clinton was forced to do so by a newly elected and having been in the electoral wilderness for 40 years, Republican Congress, before they succombed to the inevitable siren song of corruption.
Those Congressman who were elected in 1994, knew that the idea of representative republic is imbedded in the idea that one comes to serve and then retires from public office. Most of them had enough integrity to do just that.
However, all before them and after them kept looking out only for their own re-election chances, miserable pathetic worms that they were.
Like I said before: The United States needs to have two changes: 1. Term limits, so that the worthless bastards who rule now would be dumped longed before their "best-before" label expires and 2. Line-item-veto for the President, so that all the expensive crap piled upon legitimite bills can be rejected by a responsible President.
Clinton balanced he budget.
Yeah, right!
In balancing the budget Clinton was forced to do so by a newly elected and having been in the electoral wilderness for 40 years, Republican Congress, before they succombed to the inevitable siren song of corruption.
Those Congressman who were elected in 1994, knew that the idea of representative republic is imbedded in the idea that one comes to serve and then retires from public office. Most of them had enough integrity to do just that.
However, all before them and after them kept looking out only for their own re-election chances, miserable pathetic worms that they were.
Like I said before: The United States needs to have two changes: 1. Term limits, so that the worthless bastards who rule now would be dumped longed before their "best-before" label expires and 2. Line-item-veto for the President, so that all the expensive crap piled upon legitimite bills can be rejected by a responsible President.
I think the same generally applies to Canada. Our system as currently operated does not work in the best interests of taxpayers.
It doesn't seem to work in anybody's favour, taxpayer or not. We need to redesign the entire system and weed out all the dead wood in our bureaucracies. That alone would put the strength back in our social safety nets and clean up out dept.
True. There is more than enough money poured into government coffers every year to fix most if not all of our problems if it were managed wisely. I was always in favor of running government more along the business model. Mostly thinking along the lines of small business where every penny counts as I have seen some very wasteful decisions made by managers in large corps with the attitude of" we have so much money sunk into this project now an other few grand won't matter" Happened two weeks ago with the major we contract to. I offered them a viable alternative to getting rid of a product they do not want that would have saved over $40000 in trucking costs alone. And they wonder why they are tottering on the edge of bankruptcy.:roll: