Hey, what can I say, I have a biblical worldview. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbo
Printable View
Hey, what can I say, I have a biblical worldview. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbo
I don't know how many signed that but I do know that taxes were just raised and that could not have happened if Republicans had not voted for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
What do you want me to say at this point, RIP Grover Norquist?
Quote:
But again the central position of the GOP regardless of what they say isn't to reduce the deficit, or the national debt. As stated by their actions their central plan is to reduce federal revenue NOT INCREASE IT, maintain the deficit, continue to increase the debt as they believe the private sector will grow to offset the imbalance over time....
We know this because the party endorsed the Ryan budget, and that's exactly what it did. It was neutral on the deficit over the next 20 years.... dramatically cut federal revenue, dramatically cut social programs... as referenced earlier in this thread.
Well, how does this deviate from what I believed their position to be? I believe I said that they were for cost controls, spending cuts and increased revenues through revisions to the tax code. The revisions to that Tax Code, under Ryan's plan, would trigger increased revenues. Now, it would seem that you don't believe that restructuring the Tax Code would create more revenue, is that correct? I mean, if that is your belief, that's fine. You are entitled to it but there is no proof, at all, that restructuring the Tax Code would not result in higher revenues. In fact, I think that there is ample proof that they would.
---------- Post added January-31st-2013 at 03:14 PM ----------
It does not shock me that you do not view the President as Left leaning. The Bill that President Obama passed is nothing like the Bill introduced by the Nixon administration. I actually believe that Univrsal Healthcare was originally introduced in the Early 1900s. It would eventually take the form of things like Sick Pay, Sick Leave, Maternity Leave, Death Benefits and the like. It did not start out as such. It was originally proposed as a National Healthcare policy but that is where it actually started. It was not Nixon, if that is the contention, that started the idea. It was a progressive liberal idea.Quote:
I don't think beyond energy policy he's even left leaning... His signature healthcare bill was first proposed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation, and was first championed by Richard Nixon being defeated by liberals lead by Ted Kennedy. It is fundamentally a reform of our existing system, which is by definition conservative in nature.
But you are correct, as a moderate or even moderate conservative he is to the left of many in congress
However, and I think this is very important, time moves on and situations change. In the Nixon Era, this country was in a different financial situation. What we might have been able to consider then, economically, is vastly different now. I don't believe that the Republican Party has as much of an issue with healthcare for all Americans as they do being able to afford such a thing. That, IMO, is the crux of the issue for Republicans and they are not alone. Just this week, reports of Unions who want to opt out of Obamacare are surfacing. I don't think this is just a Republican issue. I think this will eventually scope the entire population. Lots of Democrats are not going to like this either IMO.
The point I'm trying to make is that we don't live in a vacuum. Things will change because circumstances change.
---------- Post added January-31st-2013 at 02:08 PM ----------
Romney didn't get elected and I have a hard time believing that Romney is the face of the Republican Party. In fact, I think the last election kinda proved that. I don't know if the numbers you present here are actual increases once you account for year to year inflation etc. Maybe they are, maybe they are not but as you said earlier, GHB decreased the Military over time and I would imagine that any President, from any party would decrease defense spending once the Wars were brought to a close. I don't think you can just say that the Republicans are for increasing defense period. That's just not a factual statement IMO. Besides, as I said earlier, it's not just the Republicans who are in the business of voting for defense increases. Democrats do it too and that is something that you don't even acknowledge. How can there be a sensible conversation of that single point isn't even acknowledged?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
And proof one can be a good egg even carrying such a burden. :pfft:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zguy28
I keed. You aren't heavy, you're my brother. :)
Unless that were to work against you in your circle, and then I'd disavow all relationship for your own good. :ols:
:doh: I gave you the number 95% of republicans in congress signed it along with every Presidential Republican Candidate except 1. And dude, we went off the fiscal cliff, our credit rating was reduced for the first time in our history. The job growth has been brought to a scratchiness halt during these budgetary stand offs.. Wall Street and the Economy has been forced to endure years of fiscal uncertainty... and each time the GOP has driven us right up too, or a little beyond the of crisis to cause all this uncertainty... they cave in.... You can't go back then and say... hey see they really want to act responsible they gave in... they have the same desires as the Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY
Well you could recognize the guys who signed a pledge NEVER to raise revenue, who created the Trillion dollar deficit, who are responsible for record increase in government spending... who have never ever ever advocated for a balanced or frankly responsible plan to reduce the deficit; aren't today a few month removed from the above indiscretions part of the solution or trusted to act counter to their stated and demonstrated intentions and pursue a balanced approach to fiscal reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY
Balanced approach is to hold spending constant or reduce it modestly, especially with the defense budget AND modestly increase revenue; then while you are holding costs constant over years the growth in economy takes care of the deficit..... This is what we did in the 1990's.
The republican plan is to dramatically cut social programs, dramatically and continuously over years increase defense programs, and dramatically cut revenue... The net effect is the Congressional budget office says won't reduce the deficit over the status quo for the next 20 years.
You equate the republican position and the democrat position while ignoring the cataclysmic clash of philosophies which are at the root of our fiscal problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY
You don't acknowledge the GOP doesn't advocate deficit reduction or reducing the debt. Their entire focus is on reducing government and reducing revenues and increasing spending in the face of massive overwhelming debt which will create even more debt and higher deficits. WHICH IS WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS!!!
- Reagan did it about tripling the national debt.
- Bush Jr did it inheriting a surplus, in his very first budget he went from a surplus to deficit.. Then cut revenue which became the largest discretionary contributor to the deficit.. all while dramatically increasing spending. Doubling our national debt.
- The Ryan Plan mirrors this same behavior doesn't reduce the monster deficit over the next 20 years, never balances the budget..
- The Romney Plan mirrored the Ryan plan, only it called from dramatically increasing the defense budget too. Even more spending
You have a hard time believing Romney's message was embraced by the GOP? Oh come on now you are just being silly... Romney flip flopped all over the canvas during the election... You are actually suggesting he flip flopped away from the GOP position? Besides the GOP both senate and congress endorsed the Ryan Plan which closely mirrored the Romney Plan...Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY
Here's more by the same guy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cit-obama-grow
"There is an astounding level of confusion surrounding the current US deficit. There are three irrefutable facts about the deficits:
First, the United States has large deficits because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy.
Second, if we had smaller deficits the main result would be slower growth and higher unemployment.
Third, large projected long-term deficits are the result of a broken health care system, not reckless government "entitlement" programs.
The first point can be easily shown by examining the Congressional Budget Office's projections from January 2008 (pdf), before it recognized the impact of the collapse of the housing bubble on the economy. The deficit in 2007 was just 1.2 percent of GDP. The deficit was projected to stay near 1.5 percent of GDP until well into the current decade, even if the Bush tax cuts did not expire. "
He's obviously a really biased socialist.