GOP Cuts Deep As Right Revolts

[Appaholic]

Faced with a revolt on the right, House Republicans scrambled Wednesday to adjust their budget strategy and come up with tens of billions of dollars in additional savings — including a possible across-the-board cut — to appease tea party supporters.

The day began with the once-proud House Appropriations Committee previewing what it saw as an unprecedented package of more than $40 billion in reductions from current domestic and foreign aid funding. But even as the numbers were released, conservatives at a morning caucus demanded twice the reductions.


More than any single event in the new Congress, the standoff captured what’s become a rhetorical nightmare for GOP leaders — having pledged to cut $100 billion from spending this year but then single-mindedly targeting just one narrow segment of the budget covering domestic programs and foreign aid.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49156.html

[Appaholic]

So.....it's a lot easier to say you're cutting the budget than actually doing it....especially when the political cowards refuse to touch Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security or Pentagon. So the Republicans, in their efforts to thwart Socialism within this country, are unwilling to make necessary cuts to three programs that are the most representative of Socialist policies currently enacted within this country....fokking cowards... ...the more things change....

[TwinTownBisonFan]

*starts printing campaign mail*

slashing spending like this makes running against these guys so much easier.

[GannonFan]

*starts printing campaign mail*

slashing spending like this makes running against these guys so much easier.

Eh, we'll see. Plenty of people thought running against the Tea Party and the like would've been easy in 2010 and it didn't turn out that way. And that was when they were promising to do this slashing spending. I don't think that them following through on their campaign pledge will lose them the same voters that voted for them. Now, if the economy doesn't get any better and people are still out of jobs, all bets are off - no one wins in those circumstances. But if the economy limps along with enough forward progress, and these guys manage to make massive cuts, I don't see how that's going to hurt them come election time.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

*starts printing campaign mail*

slashing spending like this makes running against these guys so much easier.

Eh, we'll see. Plenty of people thought running against the Tea Party and the like would've been easy in 2010 and it didn't turn out that way. And that was when they were promising to do this slashing spending. I don't think that them following through on their campaign pledge will lose them the same voters that voted for them. Now, if the economy doesn't get any better and people are still out of jobs, all bets are off - no one wins in those circumstances. But if the economy limps along with enough forward progress, and these guys manage to make massive cuts, I don't see how that's going to hurt them come election time.

because everyone likes cuts when the out-party is calling for them... but when the sword swings and peoples lives start being effected... shit hits fans... happens all the time. "Joe Smith voted to take school lunches away from 5 million poor children... call Joe Smith and tell him he's a sonofabitch"

shit writes itself, and it WORKS

[GannonFan]

Eh, we'll see. Plenty of people thought running against the Tea Party and the like would've been easy in 2010 and it didn't turn out that way. And that was when they were promising to do this slashing spending. I don't think that them following through on their campaign pledge will lose them the same voters that voted for them. Now, if the economy doesn't get any better and people are still out of jobs, all bets are off - no one wins in those circumstances. But if the economy limps along with enough forward progress, and these guys manage to make massive cuts, I don't see how that's going to hurt them come election time.

because everyone likes cuts when the out-party is calling for them... but when the sword swings and peoples lives start being effected... **** hits fans... happens all the time. "Joe Smith voted to take school lunches away from 5 million poor children... call Joe Smith and tell him he's a sonofabitch"

**** writes itself, and it WORKS

And if the economy sucks in 2012 and people are out of work, you'll be absolutely correct. But, if we're chugging along, at least going forward, they may be okay. The deficit's still going to be there, and then some, in 2012, so running on the platform of more spending isn't going to be a natural winner either. I just think the outcome of the election will have much more to do with other things other than how much or what was cut.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

because everyone likes cuts when the out-party is calling for them... but when the sword swings and peoples lives start being effected... **** hits fans... happens all the time. "Joe Smith voted to take school lunches away from 5 million poor children... call Joe Smith and tell him he's a sonofabitch"

**** writes itself, and it WORKS

And if the economy sucks in 2012 and people are out of work, you'll be absolutely correct. But, if we're chugging along, at least going forward, they may be okay. The deficit's still going to be there, and then some, in 2012, so running on the platform of more spending isn't going to be a natural winner either. I just think the outcome of the election will have much more to do with other things other than how much or what was cut.

voters don't care about deficits... never have, never will. they'll tell you they do... but they don't. if the economy is moving they'll retain the president and shift their focus to other issues in the congressional/senate races - but the deficit won't really matter. spending cuts move votes, tax increases move votes... but the deficit itself - your average voter couldn't care less.

[GannonFan]

And if the economy sucks in 2012 and people are out of work, you'll be absolutely correct. But, if we're chugging along, at least going forward, they may be okay. The deficit's still going to be there, and then some, in 2012, so running on the platform of more spending isn't going to be a natural winner either. I just think the outcome of the election will have much more to do with other things other than how much or what was cut.

voters don't care about deficits... never have, never will. they'll tell you they do... but they don't. if the economy is moving they'll retain the president and shift their focus to other issues in the congressional/senate races - but the deficit won't really matter. spending cuts move votes, tax increases move votes... but the deficit itself - your average voter couldn't care less.

Of course, you're also the guy who think voters will say they are independents but then secretly have posters of either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton in their bedrooms and vote accordingly.

I agree that voters don't vote on the deficit, per se, but they do vote on the economic climate it creates. How else do you ascribe someone like Arlen Specter no longer being in office? He delivered more tax cuts, and more dollars to constituents, and yet despite those being big vote movers, he's gone. Surely people where voting on more than those things.

[houndawg]

*starts printing campaign mail*

slashing spending like this makes running against these guys so much easier.

Eh, we'll see. Plenty of people thought running against the Tea Party and the like would've been easy in 2010 and it didn't turn out that way. And that was when they were promising to do this slashing spending. I don't think that them following through on their campaign pledge will lose them the same voters that voted for them. Now, if the economy doesn't get any better and people are still out of jobs, all bets are off - no one wins in those circumstances. But if the economy limps along with enough forward progress, and these guys manage to make massive cuts, I don't see how that's going to hurt them come election time.

Because they can't make massive cuts without including the Pentagon, and then there will be plenty of laid off defense workers chomping at the bit to vote against those unpatriotic sonsabitches that cut their jobs.

[Wedgebuster]

Yup, to me, the economy is doing just awesome as long as my personal situation is improving. Take that away, and man, we got problems!

People do not give a shit about the deficits, and they don't even know what they are. What they DO know is there is a family of jungle bunnies squatting in the White House.

That is the real problem here with the partisans from the tea bag side of the isle, certainly not the deficit.

As mentioned ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the ones to get the blame when the government/defense jobs get eliminated will be those who championed these cuts, and their party will have hell to pay.

Likely the baggers will end up with the blame for the increased unemployment rates as a result of these "deep cuts" as well.

"Let's Roll!"

[houndawg]

Yup, to me, the economy is doing just awesome as long as my personal situation is improving. Take that away, and man, we got problems!

People do not give a **** about the deficits, and they don't even know what they are. What they DO know is there is a family of jungle bunnies squatting in the White House.

That is the real problem here with the partisans from the tea bag side of the isle, certainly not the deficit.

As mentioned ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the ones to get the blame when the government/defense jobs get eliminated will be those who championed these cuts, and their party will have hell to pay.

Likely the baggers will end up with the blame for the increased unemployment rates as a result of these "deep cuts" as well.

"Let's Roll!"

Truth so pure.

Deficits and runaway government spending became an issue for the baggers in January, 2009.

[AZGrizFan]

Yup, to me, the economy is doing just awesome as long as my personal situation is improving. Take that away, and man, we got problems!

People do not give a shit about the deficits, and they don't even know what they are. What they DO know is there is a family of jungle bunnies squatting in the White House.

That is the real problem here with the partisans from the tea bag side of the isle, certainly not the deficit.

As mentioned ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the ones to get the blame when the government/defense jobs get eliminated will be those who championed these cuts, and their party will have hell to pay.

Likely the baggers will end up with the blame for the increased unemployment rates as a result of these "deep cuts" as well.

"Let's Roll!"

Yep. Classic. When you can't make a cohesive argument, throw out the race card.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

voters don't care about deficits... never have, never will. they'll tell you they do... but they don't. if the economy is moving they'll retain the president and shift their focus to other issues in the congressional/senate races - but the deficit won't really matter. spending cuts move votes, tax increases move votes... but the deficit itself - your average voter couldn't care less.

Of course, you're also the guy who think voters will say they are independents but then secretly have posters of either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton in their bedrooms and vote accordingly.

I agree that voters don't vote on the deficit, per se, but they do vote on the economic climate it creates. How else do you ascribe someone like Arlen Specter no longer being in office? He delivered more tax cuts, and more dollars to constituents, and yet despite those being big vote movers, he's gone. Surely people where voting on more than those things.

Specter lost because he switched parties... plain and simple. base democrats never liked nor trusted him and the gop saw him as a traitor... combine that with a gop wave year... THAT is why he lost.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Yup, to me, the economy is doing just awesome as long as my personal situation is improving. Take that away, and man, we got problems!

the essence of voters.

[BDKJMU]

We're f***ed:
Government debt to exceed U.S. economy

"President Obama‘s budget, released Monday, was conceived as a blueprint for future spending, but it also paints the bleakest picture yet of the current fiscal year, which is on track for a record federal deficit and will see the government’s overall debt surpass the size of the total U.S. economy.

Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP — the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached........"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-economy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Deficit is biggest as share of economy since 1945
".....The budget plan President Barack Obama sent Congress on Monday foresees a record deficit of $1.65 trillion this year. That would be just under 11 percent of the $14 trillion economy - the largest proportion since 1945,...."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110215/D9LD6Q580.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

because everyone likes cuts when the out-party is calling for them... but when the sword swings and peoples lives start being effected... shit hits fans... happens all the time. "Joe Smith voted to take school lunches away from 5 million poor children... call Joe Smith and tell him he's a sonofabitch"

shit writes itself, and it WORKS

I would applaud Joe Smith for getting rid of childhood obesity.

[Pwns]

*starts printing campaign mail*

slashing spending like this makes running against these guys so much easier.

Yup. The opponents of a more stringent budget can team with the special interests that are losing their piece of the government waste pie.