View Full Version : Compeling reasons to vote against obama
CarlosDJackal
08-17-12, 22:50
This should scare the daylights out of anyone with any brains
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election.
If Mitt wins the nomination, I will enthusiastically
support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that
score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.
In addition, Justice Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer.
Justice Stephens has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected. The next president could appoint as many as 4 new Justices over next 8 years. This election is about more than ObamaCare Tax.
We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky.
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win, imagine this:
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER
Belmont31R
08-17-12, 22:58
Roberts.
Roberts.
He sure is an enigma. However, the health care decision debacle is hardly a reason to ignore the importance of a President's power of appointing justices. If anything, it should make us more leery of future candidates whose major attribute is the ability to dazzle 100 senators with an encyclopedic knowledge of case law.
I say it is time to start striking down candidates, even from Republican Presidents, who refuse to get into the specifics of today's issue. If they try to dance around these issues, send them packing back to Harvard to lament in the faculty lounge.
History has taught us that having a Republican appoint a justice does not guarantee conservative decisions. This probably has something to do with the fact that most lawyers and law schools are factories for progressive thought - call it selection bias.
However, Democrats are much more successful at packing the court with justices that drink the liberal cool aid. Carlos is correct, the next President will choose at least 2 justices and WILL change the balance of the court. In addition, there will be future decisions to further clarify limitations on the 2nd Amendment in the next 4 years. Count on it.
Reagans Rascals
08-18-12, 04:21
its hard to imagine anyone getting a shot at the bench worse than Sotomayor..... besides Pelosi or Nepolitano.... literally just 3 straight thunder cunts
CarlosDJackal
08-18-12, 09:02
Roberts.
:rolleyes:
You think Roberts is a screw up just wait for the 2nd Obama term and if he were to get just one SC appointment in his pocket. Assume the Senate keeps a Democrat majority.
FDR had the SC and Congress rubber stamping his toilet paper for years and we still have many staples of his Presidency in effect today. Stop and think...are you better off today than you were four years ago and will you be any better off four years from now with more liberal legislation rammed down your throat?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-18-12, 14:50
As much as I think Romney is a Rino, I agree with the OP here. For me, its not so much about voting for Romney, its about voting against Obama.
As far as Roberts goes........with a Republican president, we have maybe a 50% chance of getting a SC justice that doesn't suck. With a Democratic president, that number approaches 0%.
He sure is an enigma. However, the health care decision debacle is hardly a reason to ignore the importance of a President's power of appointing justices. If anything, it should make us more leery of future candidates whose major attribute is the ability to dazzle 100 senators with an encyclopedic knowledge of case law.
I say it is time to start striking down candidates, even from Republican Presidents, who refuse to get into the specifics of today's issue. If they try to dance around these issues, send them packing back to Harvard to lament in the faculty lounge.
History has taught us that having a Republican appoint a justice does not guarantee conservative decisions. This probably has something to do with the fact that most lawyers and law schools are factories for progressive thought - call it selection bias.
However, Democrats are much more successful at packing the court with justices that drink the liberal cool aid. Carlos is correct, the next President will choose at least 2 justices and WILL change the balance of the court. In addition, there will be future decisions to further clarify limitations on the 2nd Amendment in the next 4 years. Count on it.
Roberts is no enigma, he has been completely compromised by the commie/fascist hybrid in the white house. If you would just take the time to read his "ahh" reasoning behind his decision to end the republic, you would see just how utterly desperate he was to accomplish that task!
We must keep in mind that he also gutted Arizona's immigration law the week before he ended the republic, an act which was almost totally overshadowed by his treachery with Obamacare....But no less far far leftist of him...
The high court is already firmly in Obama's camp, they compromised Roberts, reading his Obamacare decision, reveals the machinations of an extrordinarily desperate mind...It was virtually incoherent...
Roberts is no enigma, he has been completely compromised by the commie/fascist hybrid in the white house. If you would just take the time to read his "ahh" reasoning behind his decision to end the republic, you would see just how utterly desperate he was to accomplish that task!
We must keep in mind that he also gutted Arizona's immigration law the week before he ended the republic, an act which was almost totally overshadowed by his treachery with Obamacare....But no less far far leftist of him...
The high court is already firmly in Obama's camp, they compromised Roberts, reading his Obamacare decision, reveals the machinations of an extrordinarily desperate mind...It was virtually incoherent...
My enigma comment was in reference to the fact that he once had a very conservative voting record up until this year and was thought to have great potential. At one point, it was thought that he would assume Scalia's role as the next conservative brain trust on the Court. Well, that is now gone after Scalia basically called him a moron in the dissent. Why a man would throw that away is a mystery to me.
Belmont31R
08-18-12, 22:56
:rolleyes:
I guess you don't realize the power the government now has to tax you for not buying whatever they want you to.
The mental gymnastics in that opinion were so absurd you have got to be kidding me. That ONE GUY ****ed humanity over so bad he gave a blank check to the government to do whatever they want so long as they classify it as a tax.
My enigma comment was in reference to the fact that he once had a very conservative voting record up until this year and was thought to have great potential. At one point, it was thought that he would assume Scalia's role as the next conservative brain trust on the Court. Well, that is now gone after Scalia basically called him a moron in the dissent. Why a man would throw that away is a mystery to me.
Well, we can only speculate, however the almost unified explanations of the popular propaganda sources that he was persuaded by intense media pressure, was just as feeble as the incoherent reasoning he penned as justification for killing the republic!
Likely, Roberts, or some family member, has a very dark secret that will now, remain just that....
Just last week I caught FNC's Megan "whatshername" opining that in the upcoming SCOTUS sessions, Kennedy will again be the unpredictable swing guy of the court, straddling the fense posts between conservatives & the crazies!
The crazies already have the court, Kennedy is not among them...and he never was one of them...If Obama emerges victorious this November, he won't need any additions to own the majority on the court, he already owns it, regardless, what he will do is stack it...
I'm with you, I'll be voting Romney Ryan.
But:
Republican Pres. don't always mean conservative justices.
The Earl Warren court presided over some of the most "progressive" periods in SCOTUS history. He was appointed by Eisenhower. Bush HW appointed David Souter, a huge lefty.
CarlosDJackal
08-19-12, 10:24
I'm with you, I'll be voting Romney Ryan.
But:
Republican Pres. don't always mean conservative justices.
The Earl Warren court presided over some of the most "progressive" periods in SCOTUS history. He was appointed by Eisenhower. Bush HW appointed David Souter, a huge lefty.
Yup. There are no guarantees... except that if obama gets re-elected we will probably experience some very dire straits. And reemember, it will pretty much be a guarantee that that racist Eric Holder will be SCOTUS
This is about the only issue that keeps tugging me towards Romney vs write in.
This is about the only issue that keeps tugging me towards Romney vs write in.
Yeah. I REALLY don't like Romney. But the thought of an Obama 2nd term with no accountability to anyone, declaring horrific EOs and forcing people to take him to court to reverse each and every single one, cooking up more false flag attacks on the BoR, and flooding SCOTUS with more fat butch lesbo communists?
No thanks. I'll take the douche masshole.
Yeah. I REALLY don't like Romney. But the thought of an Obama 2nd term with no accountability to anyone, declaring horrific EOs and forcing people to take him to court to reverse each and every single one, cooking up more false flag attacks on the BoR, and flooding SCOTUS with more fat butch lesbo communists?
No thanks. I'll take the douche masshole.
Everything else is reversible and is waking a lot of sheeple up, but, stacking SCOTUS would be the end.
I just wonder how many Libertarians are going to vote for Gary Johnson and hand Obama the White House for a second term?
Romney isn't the best choice, but he's going to get my vote if it means Obama loses his job.
I just wonder how many Libertarians are going to vote for Gary Johnson and hand Obama the White House for a second term?
Not enough to cost Romney the election but enough to make us sweat down to the last vote in a few battleground states.
I just wonder how many Libertarians are going to vote for Gary Johnson and hand Obama the White House for a second term?
Romney isn't the best choice, but he's going to get my vote if it means Obama loses his job.
It depends on 2 things: 1) if he gets Ron Paul's endorsement, and 2) if he is allowed in the debates.
The RP endorsement is not likely to happen since it would hurt Rand's standing in the party. However, Johnson endorsed RP's 2008 Presidential candidacy, so it is not out of the realm of possibility. In addition, Paul supporters tout their leader as the most principled man in politics, so it must pull at his heart strings to see Johnson fighting the good fight.
As for the debate, I understand that is the focus of Johnson's campaign. He is on the ballot in all 50 states, but he still needs to poll in double digits to be considered for the debates.
IF Romney goes down because GJ siphoned off enough votes to allow Obama to win, that'll be the mother of all "learned the hard way" lessons for Republicans.
If you nominate lying RINO stuffed suits, you ask for a conservative split, and a socialist victory.
Cincinnatus
08-20-12, 03:11
IF Romney goes down because GJ siphoned off enough votes to allow Obama to win, that'll be the mother of all "learned the hard way" lessons for Republicans.
If you nominate lying RINO stuffed suits, you ask for a conservative split, and a socialist victory.
That already happened when they nominated McCain. If you think the Republican establishment is ever going to learn anything from defeat, you will be dissapointed. They would rather lose running a moderate than win running a conservative.
IF Romney goes down because GJ siphoned off enough votes to allow Obama to win, that'll be the mother of all "learned the hard way" lessons for Republicans.
If you nominate lying RINO stuffed suits, you ask for a conservative split, and a socialist victory.
What does nominating a lying Libertarian win us? I ask because anyone who votes for Gary Johnson needs to ask themselves this question. A quick look at his platform reveals that he is either a lier like every other politician or, even worse, detached from reality.
Let's look at his proposed budget cuts to the military as an example. He calls for 46% cut in the military's budget IN HIS FIRST YEAR. Now, we all know that no such budget would ever pass Congress, but let's assume that it does. Does anyone know the second largest budget item for the Army? It is healthcare (services, facilities, etc). Now, does anyone think the Army could adjust to such rapid cuts in 1 year without denying healthcare services to military families. What is the Navy and Air Force going to do with their fleets that first year when there is not enough funds to shore or disassemble them.
Then, the clown calls for a US military assassin team to go into Africa to kill Joseph Kony in one breath, while advocating a non-intervetionist foreign policy a few seconds later. This guy panders to what he thinks people want to hear and manages to sacrifice his own principles in the process - yeah, I've never seen that before from a politician. He needs to stop smoking weed and loosen the necktie.
Finally, he calls for a 23% national sales tax to replace the income tax. Oh, I'm sure that is going to happen. But if it does, why does such a budget cutter need that much revenue coming into the treasury?
For those of you who think he has it together, take a look at his performance on FNC's circle jerk:
http://millergd.blogspot.com/2011/10/gary-johnson-fails-lewrockwell-article.html
The guy got his ass handed to him by Krouthammer. What do you think will happen to him once the MSM smells his blood in the water?
I've got a compelling reason to add to the 10,000 or so I already have.. A long night of bad dreams.. God I hope it was the wine and pizza.. In one of the sequences I saw our POTUS and to the right of his image I saw vertically along side the numbers 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. I woke up, it seriously freaked me out.
VooDoo6Actual
08-20-12, 13:28
Obama's America : 2016
http://2016themovie.com/media/
Dreams from My Real Father: Director Joel Gilbert at National Press Club, Washington DC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOmzTLdr_m4
What does nominating a lying Libertarian win us? I ask because anyone who votes for Gary Johnson needs to ask themselves this question. A quick look at his platform reveals that he is either a lier like every other politician or, even worse, detached from reality.
Let's look at his proposed budget cuts to the military as an example. He calls for 46% cut in the military's budget IN HIS FIRST YEAR. Now, we all know that no such budget would ever pass Congress, but let's assume that it does. Does anyone know the second largest budget item for the Army? It is healthcare (services, facilities, etc). Now, does anyone think the Army could adjust to such rapid cuts in 1 year without denying healthcare services to military families. What is the Navy and Air Force going to do with their fleets that first year when there is not enough funds to shore or disassemble them.
Then, the clown calls for a US military assassin team to go into Africa to kill Joseph Kony in one breath, while advocating a non-intervetionist foreign policy a few seconds later. This guy panders to what he thinks people want to hear and manages to sacrifice his own principles in the process - yeah, I've never seen that before from a politician. He needs to stop smoking weed and loosen the necktie.
Finally, he calls for a 23% national sales tax to replace the income tax. Oh, I'm sure that is going to happen. But if it does, why does such a budget cutter need that much revenue coming into the treasury?
For those of you who think he has it together, take a look at his performance on FNC's circle jerk:
http://millergd.blogspot.com/2011/10/gary-johnson-fails-lewrockwell-article.html
The guy got his ass handed to him by Krouthammer. What do you think will happen to him once the MSM smells his blood in the water?
Agreed. I was just saying that if he pulls enough votes out of Romney's basket, it might be due to the fact that Romney is a big government, flip flopping chickenhawk. A true politician, not a true leader.
Two cents:
America will most likely not survive (in a form we recognize) if 0bama gets a second term to 'finish the job.' He will pack the court with insane leftists. Then, for the next 30 years they will work the Progressive Agenda.
Yep, Romney is a chickenhawk. He and his kind have gone out of their way to avoid military service for themselves and their children, while at the same time promoting it's virtue, saber rattling and pounding the drums of war. He is pro big business - not pro free market. He will do whatever is politically expedient not what is 'right' for the American people. However, he pretty much reflects the views of most of the Gop Establishment and your average Gop voter. And, he is safe a boring enough to attract disaffected Dem voters (sometimes called "Independents").
The DoD is in desperate need of a cut in it's budget. Something around 50% would do nicely. It is only by having so much money are we able to waste in the way that we do. The ACU in UCP anyone? We actually spent money on that? And we changed every piece of gear to UCP. That sort of nonsense can only happen when the branches are given crazy money with little oversight and accountability. And this sort of poor fiscal management happens everyday across the DoD. It must stop.
CarlosDJackal
08-22-12, 14:15
Two cents:...The DoD is in desperate need of a cut in it's budget. Something around 50% would do nicely. It is only by having so much money are we able to waste in the way that we do. The ACU in UCP anyone? We actually spent money on that? And we changed every piece of gear to UCP. That sort of nonsense can only happen when the branches are given crazy money with little oversight and accountability. And this sort of poor fiscal management happens everyday across the DoD. It must stop.
Except this isn't reality. You are assuming that a dwindling budget will affect such boondoggles. The unfortunate reality is these cuts will affect the more important aspects of the military such as programs meant to take care of the Soldiers and their family, Medical programs, much needed equipment, and most important of all: TRAINING. They will gut these programs (as they have been and are currently doing) before they allow their rice bowls to be broken.
You want to cut the DoD budget? Start by taking away the two C-17 Globemasters that is in use by the current Chief of Staff. Add to that the waste and abuse that the President, his First Lady, the VP, and various other members of Congress and the Senate because they are allowed to use DoD assets and personnel to support their vacations, golf trips, and Campaign efforts.
Another HUGE waste is the GAO (or is it GSA?) requirement that budgets and budgeted items have to be used up in the Fiscal Year (Oct 1 - Sep 31) for which it was approved for. I have seen so much ammunition and funding used the last few weeks of the Fiscal Year just for the sake of using them up. We used to sign out our what remained of our allotted 4.2-inch mortar rounds 2-weeks prior to the end of the Fiscal Year just so that we can launch them into the impact area without any regard to training. We did the same thing for small arms ammo for the M2, M203s and M60s.
And this is not just a military problem. In December of 1997, I was laid off from a contract job in the Department of State because there was no approved budget. But the September before we were asked to spend a half million dollars by the end of the week or they were going to have to turn it in.
How about revamping the joke of a procurement system that we currently have where established companies such as Colt, Lockheed, Motorola, etc., can steer the selection of new equipment with the help of the politicians that represent them? Contrary to what this current moron of a POTUS and previous ones say; the way to cut the military's waste is to cut the hands off any Congressman or Senator who has a special interest in any military contract. JM2CW.
Strassel: The Silent Second-Term Agenda - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577607653771401124.html
---
This is not the election to screw around with write ins. Obama makes Romney look like George Washington.
Im not a "Romney" fan by any means, but until October -GO ROMNEY!
If we elect a republican potus, and constitutional republican senetors, we can pressure him into doing the right things. If obama gets in - forget it.
Also dont forget that potus is not a ruler - as much as obama likes to think. Even if you get your GJohnson in, will congress cooperate? Politics is a screwed up, but set system, and we have to fix it from the inside out.
Biggest thing this election is ECONOMY. Do you want to vote for a tried and true capitalist or let Obama outsource more of our tax $ to fund foreign jobs, and illegal immigrants, and their health care... and spend more tax $ on food stamps for half the country, and gun running, and Huge national unions, and keeping domestic jobs from becoming available... Need I continue?
You gotta be kidding me.
Except this isn't reality. You are assuming that a dwindling budget will affect such boondoggles.
Based on my experience it very much will. The USMC is the most fiscally responsible of all of the branches. It has the smallest budget and makes the most responsible spending decisions. It does this because it cannot afford to blow money on nonsense.
In our current war, the 40% of the deployed force is being provided by the Reserve Component. The RC uses only 9% of the budget. About 50% of the Active Army has not been deployed. WTF? Yet, the non-deployers are drawing full pay and benefits. I would argue it is high time to right-size the force. Given the above stats, I would argue we should cut the AC in half and double the size of the RC. I personally know National Guard guys who have deployed 5 times in the last 10 years. At the same time, I know a certain Special Forces SGM who has spent those same 10 years homesteading in Germany.
High Tower
08-25-12, 20:17
Except this isn't reality. You are assuming that a dwindling budget will affect such boondoggles. The unfortunate reality is these cuts will affect the more important aspects of the military such as programs meant to take care of the Soldiers and their family, Medical programs, much needed equipment, and most important of all: TRAINING. They will gut these programs (as they have been and are currently doing) before they allow their rice bowls to be broken.
You want to cut the DoD budget? Start by taking away the two C-17 Globemasters that is in use by the current Chief of Staff. Add to that the waste and abuse that the President, his First Lady, the VP, and various other members of Congress and the Senate because they are allowed to use DoD assets and personnel to support their vacations, golf trips, and Campaign efforts.
Another HUGE waste is the GAO (or is it GSA?) requirement that budgets and budgeted items have to be used up in the Fiscal Year (Oct 1 - Sep 31) for which it was approved for. I have seen so much ammunition and funding used the last few weeks of the Fiscal Year just for the sake of using them up. We used to sign out our what remained of our allotted 4.2-inch mortar rounds 2-weeks prior to the end of the Fiscal Year just so that we can launch them into the impact area without any regard to training. We did the same thing for small arms ammo for the M2, M203s and M60s.
And this is not just a military problem. In December of 1997, I was laid off from a contract job in the Department of State because there was no approved budget. But the September before we were asked to spend a half million dollars by the end of the week or they were going to have to turn it in.
How about revamping the joke of a procurement system that we currently have where established companies such as Colt, Lockheed, Motorola, etc., can steer the selection of new equipment with the help of the politicians that represent them? Contrary to what this current moron of a POTUS and previous ones say; the way to cut the military's waste is to cut the hands off any Congressman or Senator who has a special interest in any military contract. JM2CW.
This is an excellent summation. The pot smoking hippy libertarians constantly talk about cutting military funding without trying to diagnose the problem. As we have seen with BO's cuts, it only hurts the soldiers - not the brass, the contractors, or the congressmen. There is certainly room to cut, but instead of these across-the-board cuts, how bout we stop the development of that F-35 engine that NO ONE wants?! And numerous other issues such as that one example.
Obama's America : 2016
http://2016themovie.com/media/
Dinesh D'Souza...HAHAHA. I've read ALL of D'Souza's books (ya' know - know your enemy and all that), and his agenda / biases in pedaling this film are blatantly obvious to me. If you want to know why, you'll have to read him. His views are, in many ways, antithetical to your own. It's strange that you apparently find him credible, beyond the prima facie agreement you seem to share with him regarding "first principles" on the Obama question. Take a deeper look.
As much as I think Romney is a Rino, I agree with the OP here. For me, its not so much about voting for Romney, its about voting against Obama.
Yea, how well has this strategy worked for America?
Yea, how well has this strategy worked for America?
Better than if Gore or Kerry would've been elected. But keep whining about Bush if it makes you feel better.
Belmont31R
08-25-12, 21:00
Military spending cuts don't have to equal troops going without training or bullets.
Its kinda like anytime Republicans want to cut a budget the left immediately says teachers, firefighters, and cops have to be cut.
No one wants to go to the PORK and BLOAT in all these budgets or reform from top to bottom how the money is spent. Instead they take the most basic function of said entity, and say so and so (who actually matters) is going to lose their jobs (or beans and bullets) if the budget is cut by 1 cent or in some cases if it's not increased year after year.
Practically speaking, this is a non-issue because the Constitution states that all budgetary bills must originate in the House. POTUS can propose a budget or collaborate with Congress, but it is ultimately the House that controlls the purse strings.
Thus, Presidential budget proposals are most useful in gaining insight into a President's priorities or seeing how they think. Take the current administration as an example. Their radical budget could not garner a single vote in the Senate.
Well, Johnson's vision of a budget is no better than Obama's even though it comes from the opposit end of the spectrum. Like Obama's, it could never pass the House and a 50% reduction over 1 year could not be implemented without risking lives. However, Johnson's proposal is useful in that it lets us see his "thinking" and priorities. It also lets us know that he is no different than any other politician who makes promises that he knows can't be fulfilled.
Belmont31R
08-25-12, 21:54
Practically speaking, this is a non-issue because the Constitution states that all budgetary bills must originate in the House. POTUS can propose a budget or collaborate with Congress, but it is ultimately the House that controlls the purse strings.
Thus, Presidential budget proposals are most useful in gaining insight into a President's priorities or seeing how they think. Take the current administration as an example. Their radical budget could not garner a single vote in the Senate.
Well, Johnson's vision of a budget is no better than Obama's even though it comes from the opposit end of the spectrum. Like Obama's, it could never pass the House and a 50% reduction over 1 year could not be implemented without risking lives. However, Johnson's proposal is useful in that it lets us see his "thinking" and priorities. It also lets us know that he is no different than any other politician who makes promises that he knows can't be fulfilled.
The Republicans control the House now, and we are still dealing with 1 trillion dollar plus deficits.
I asked my rep (TX-31 John Carter) about that and never got a response.
The Republicans control the House now, and we are still dealing with 1 trillion dollar plus deficits.
I asked my rep (TX-31 John Carter) about that and never got a response.
There are 2 reasons for that: 1) the Republicans control only 1/3 of the functional government, and 2) the Senate has refused to vote on any budget in over 900 days in violation of the law.
These 2 factors work against the GOP since any hardball tactics that result in a government shutdown will be set at the feet of the GOP House members by a complicit MSM. The leason from the '90s is that any such shutdown would likely turnover control of the House, and thus exacerbate our long-term spending Thus, the GOP feels forced to adopt piecemeal spending resolutions that contain some cuts, but nothing substantial unless the pending sequestration resolution is enacted.
Keep in mind that the GOP House has passed 2 budgets that would make some meaningful improvements in the budget. Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Paul Ryan budget would have both been reasonable starts if only the GOP had control of the Senate and WH.
Better than if Gore or Kerry would've been elected. But keep whining about Bush if it makes you feel better.
Thats quite the reach, considering I never said anything of the sort.
But I guess we just make shit up around here.
There are 2 reasons for that: 1) the Republicans control only 1/3 of the functional government, and 2) the Senate has refused to vote on any budget in over 900 days in violation of the law.
These 2 factors work against the GOP since any hardball tactics that result in a government shutdown will be set at the feet of the GOP House members by a complicit MSM. The leason from the '90s is that any such shutdown would likely turnover control of the House, and thus exacerbate our long-term spending Thus, the GOP feels forced to adopt piecemeal spending resolutions that contain some cuts, but nothing substantial unless the pending sequestration resolution is enacted.
Keep in mind that the GOP House has passed 2 budgets that would make some meaningful improvements in the budget. Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Paul Ryan budget would have both been reasonable starts if only the GOP had control of the Senate and WH.
Are you talking about the Paul Ryan budget that increased spending 35%?
Belmont31R
08-25-12, 22:53
There are 2 reasons for that: 1) the Republicans control only 1/3 of the functional government, and 2) the Senate has refused to vote on any budget in over 900 days in violation of the law.
These 2 factors work against the GOP since any hardball tactics that result in a government shutdown will be set at the feet of the GOP House members by a complicit MSM. The leason from the '90s is that any such shutdown would likely turnover control of the House, and thus exacerbate our long-term spending Thus, the GOP feels forced to adopt piecemeal spending resolutions that contain some cuts, but nothing substantial unless the pending sequestration resolution is enacted.
Keep in mind that the GOP House has passed 2 budgets that would make some meaningful improvements in the budget. Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Paul Ryan budget would have both been reasonable starts if only the GOP had control of the Senate and WH.
None of which has to do with the spending they have approved. They can't explain, even after the 2010 elections, why spending hasn't been dramtically been reduced. They haven't even come lose to the highest deficit under Bush 2.
The MSM is there because Republicans SUCK at controlling the message. Who are they going to roll out? Bohner and McConnel?
Voting to pass bills which have no hope of being passed into law is a common tactic, and when the roles are reversed it works the same way. Remember all the "end the iraq war" bills the democrats passed?
montanadave
08-25-12, 23:13
Republicans promote cutting taxes and reducing government spending.
Democrats espouse enhancing revenues to support expanded government spending.
So our esteemed public servants in Washington do what any group of rational adults do when confronted with differing agendas and goals. They reach a compromise and provide their constituents with what they want.
They cut taxes and expand government spending.
What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?
http://img.tapatalk.com/93b13cde-c90d-d1ac.jpg
CarlosDJackal
08-26-12, 21:15
Military spending cuts don't have to equal troops going without training or bullets...
Unfortunately, it does. The USAR unit I just left had our AT funding and qualification ammunition (we never get any ammo for training) taken away two of the four years I was with them. And this was a Civil Affairs Battalion that has had more than its fair share of deployments - some of our members have deployed 6 times or more over the past 10-years.
You guys can say that military budget cuts do not affect the troops all you want. In more than 28-years of service I served through two cutbacks (both under dumboKratic Presidents) and have seen how these have hurt the rank and file while leaving the overpriced bacons intact (depending on which district they belong to).
BTW, I just received my layoff notice last Thursday. Because of the cutbacks they have reduced the funding of the Government Contract I am on. Never mind the fact that it is still an active project that has produced excellent results (as in positive identification of High Value Targets). It got cut because it is not championed by any politician.
This is also the seccond layoff I have ever experienced in 17-years as a contractor. Guess which party the two Presidents belong to in both cases?
CarlosDJackal
08-26-12, 21:21
The Republicans control the House now, and we are still dealing with 1 trillion dollar plus deficits.
I asked my rep (TX-31 John Carter) about that and never got a response.
Umm, the Republicans took control of the House in Jan 2011. Before that, except for the Supreme Court, the dumboKrats had control of all the other branches from Jan 2009 - Jan 2011 and they still could not pass a budget.
The reality is obamists do not want a budget because it would effectively limit their spending. Without an approved budget they basically have a credit card with an unlimited spending limit. How else can he get away with spending MILLIONS of our tax money flying everywhere in order to campaign and stump for his party.
Republicans do not want to be character assassinated in the MSM for "causing a government shutdown"
So they feel that they have to compromise on the deficit spending. If they put their foot down and say no more, there will be hell to pay.
I personally wish they'd take a hard line against the spending, shut down or not.
Umm, the Republicans took control of the House in Jan 2011. Before that, except for the Supreme Court, the dumboKrats had control of all the other branches from Jan 2009 - Jan 2011 and they still could not pass a budget.
The Dumbokrats did not even try to pass a budget while the Republicrats have passed a few.
The reality is obamists do not want a budget because it would effectively limit their spending. Without an approved budget they basically have a credit card with an unlimited spending limit. How else can he get away with spending MILLIONS of our tax money flying everywhere in order to campaign and stump for his party.
"Budget? What's that? or a Rental Car? Nothin' I need"
---
Neither side is against spending, they just have different people they want to make rich.
Are you talking about the Paul Ryan budget that increased spending 35%?
Could I see your source for that number.
None of which has to do with the spending they have approved. They can't explain, even after the 2010 elections, why spending hasn't been dramtically been reduced. They haven't even come lose to the highest deficit under Bush 2.
The MSM is there because Republicans SUCK at controlling the message. Who are they going to roll out? Bohner and McConnel?
Voting to pass bills which have no hope of being passed into law is a common tactic, and when the roles are reversed it works the same way. Remember all the "end the iraq war" bills the democrats passed?
Again there is only so much that you can do in 18 months and with control of 1/3 of the government. Also, you're not giving them credit for the sequestration cuts that go into effect in 3 months (provided that they actually happen). Granted, it is not a panacea for the trajectory of our debt, but it starts the process of overcoming the negative inertia when it comes to cutting some of the sacred cows.
You guys can say that military budget cuts do not affect the troops all you want. In more than 28-years of service I served through two cutbacks (both under dumboKratic Presidents) and have seen how these have hurt the rank and file while leaving the overpriced bacons intact (depending on which district they belong to).
BTW, I just received my layoff notice last Thursday. Because of the cutbacks they have reduced the funding of the Government Contract I am on. Never mind the fact that it is still an active project that has produced excellent results (as in positive identification of High Value Targets). It got cut because it is not championed by any politician.
The idea is to right-size the force. Congress can (and does) mandate the size of the force. Half the Army has never deployed! WTF!? Do we really need a 1/4 million troops to hold up the walls? There is a certain camp in Afghanistan with no less than 200 0-6s just checking the block and providing zero value added to the warfight. It must end. There is PLENTY of fat to cut in the DoD.
Sorry about your personal situation but that is why we have contractors in the first place. The contractors were always temporary help to get us over the hump during the war. Now that the war is coming to end (sort of), many of these contracts are going to be cut. Ideally, you should be working yourself out of a job. Regardless, the Gwat has always been a black hole for resources. I can't stand Predator TV, because it give the viewer (many of whom are GOs and Senior Staff) the idea we are "winning" because they saw it on TV. Yep, we are always just one more HVT away from Total Victory! After 10 years of war with no end in sight maybe it time we re-evaluated our strategy?
There is a certain camp in Afghanistan with no less than 200 0-6s just checking the block and providing zero value added to the war fight...
Yeh, but Eggers has 3 of the best DFAC's in theater :p.
CarlosDJackal
08-27-12, 07:55
The idea is to right-size the force. Congress can (and does) mandate the size of the force. Half the Army has never deployed! WTF!? Do we really need a 1/4 million troops to hold up the walls? There is a certain camp in Afghanistan with no less than 200 0-6s just checking the block and providing zero value added to the warfight. It must end. There is PLENTY of fat to cut in the DoD...
Boy, did you miss my point. Any budget cut will not affect those 200 O-6s as much as the EMs who suit up and conduct Combat Operations. Those O-6s probably have enough years to gain a decent retirement now.
As I have pointed out, this is not my opinion. This is my observation of what happened during the klinton years and what has been happening during the obama years. The higher ranking personnel are already at the top of the pyramid and in a position to push the pain downhill. Those of us who are at the bottom have no recourse but to take the reductions.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, since we neutered (at least in the short run) the Taliban and ALQ forces and achieved our primary stated goal (get UBL) we need to pull the hell out en mass. IMHO, we never should have given up Iraq for its resources (why aren't receiving any of the oil in payment for our services rendered?) and its strategic value. As far as I can see A-stan offers no such advantages. But that's JM2CW.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.