“Agenda America Can Have Confidence In”

• WebFire

  There should only be 1 party, the American party. Interested in making America better.
• cbus4life

  WebFire;495346 wrote:There should only be 1 party, the American party. Interested in making America better.

  
  You sound like some sort of communist.
• BoatShoes

  Bigdogg;495259 wrote:Extending the tax cuts, or making them permanent would add an estimated $4 trillion to the deficit according to the CBO. The notion that cutting the federal budget will somehow make up the difference is laughable. The pledge exempts defense, entitlements and debt service -- the biggest components of the federal budget -- and focuses on "discretionary" spending, which Republicans would cut by "at least $100 billion in the first year alone." Yeah, right. Looks like the Tea baggers are not going to be any more happy with this change either. Same old bunch of BS and failed policies that got us here in the first place.

  This!!!!! Deficits are the spawn of Satan but let's blow them up like we're on cocaine to keep taxes low!
  
  I hope to see the same anger that's been aimed at BHO and his commie buddy's when the Republican's do nothing to make any meaningful spending cuts....the key word being meaningful. If the public didn't want Obamakare...they sure as hell don't want Paul Ryan's Holy Grail.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;495790 wrote:This!!!!! Deficits are the spawn of Satan but let's blow them up like we're on cocaine to keep taxes low!
  
  I hope to see the same anger that's been aimed at BHO and his commie buddy's when the Republican's do nothing to make any meaningful spending cuts....the key word being meaningful. If the public didn't want Obamakare...they sure as hell don't want Paul Ryan's Holy Grail.

  
  Once again....it's not the government's money...it's the people's money the elitists fritter and waste every day. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is not a cost to the government.
  
  Your party has been spending like there's no tomorrow and guess what....there is no tomorrow. We have reached the end of the road. Curtailing spending is the only way out of this disaster and your party wants to spend and spend and spend and spend and puke.
  
  I have named specifics on here before, but to save you a post retort...eliminate the Depts of Energy and Education, carry budgets equal to 2008 with the only adjustments for inflation and population growth, eliminate all the waste....like 34 f*cking czars and their staffs that work in the dark, eliminate ear-marks unless they are voted on specifically in each bill, and don't spend one more nickel of TARP money because it didn't work and it isn't working now. By the way, this is the evil satan Paul Ryan's plan in most part. He sees the way out and we need to follow him and stop spending and spending and spending and spending and.........................
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;495793 wrote:Once again....it's not the government's money...it's the people's money the elitists fritter and waste every day. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is not a cost to the government.
  
  Your party has been spending like there's no tomorrow and guess what....there is no tomorrow. We have reached the end of the road. Curtailing spending is the only way out of this disaster and your party wants to spend and spend and spend and spend and puke.
  
  I have named specifics on here before, but to save you a post retort...eliminate the Depts of Energy and Education, carry budgets equal to 2008 with the only adjustments for inflation and population growth, eliminate all the waste....like 34 f*cking czars and their staffs that work in the dark, eliminate ear-marks unless they are voted on specifically in each bill, and don't spend one more nickel of TARP money because it didn't work and it isn't working now. By the way, this is the evil satan Paul Ryan's plan in most part. He sees the way out and we need to follow him and stop spending and spending and spending and spending and.........................

  
  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the Energy Department oversees civilian control of our nuclear weapons. They build and maintain our arsenal. Eliminating the the DoE is not an option.
  Also, in the area of education, overarching minimal standards by the U.S. can protect and ensure that the U.S. does not fall behind in the global drive for education. Because, like it or not, the U.S. is in a fight with other countries on jobs and education is key. If the feds lose minimal oversight, it can severely hurt the U.S. and even have national security implications. Now, I would restructure it and eliminate inefficiencies, but not eliminate it.
  
  Also, the czars are not that big a deal, as most are usually officials that are needed and already had a previous title, it was just changed. The WMD Czar and Cyber security czars are two examples.
  
  Ear-marks are small aspects in the grand scheme of things of the budget. I'm for cutting them, but it won't amass to much.
  
  If you want to cut spending, you have to have the balls to tackle Medicare/ Medicaid/ and SS.
  And I see no real party having the guts to do that.
• I Wear Pants

  ^^^^ +1
• HitsRus

  

  Extending the tax cuts, or making them permanent would add an estimated $4 trillion to the deficit according to the CBO. The notion that cutting the federal budget will somehow make up the difference is laughable. The pledge exempts defense, entitlements and debt service -- the biggest components of the federal budget -- and focuses on "discretionary" spending, which Republicans would cut by "at least $100 billion in the first year alone." Yeah, right. Looks like the Tea baggers are not going to be any more happy with this change either. Same old bunch of BS and failed policies that got us here in the first place.

  What is really laughable is the Democrats notion that they can continue to increase spending and entitlements and that they are going to tax a select few to cover it and the rest of the deficit. It is completely disingenuous to purport that the middle class is not going to pay, directly and indirectly.
  
  Hypothetically...let's say after all is said and done...and the budget is pared...and it is deemed necessary to raise taxes. Which are you as an american taxpayer going to support...A) a government that does its best to cut it's spending before raising taxes.....or B) agovernment that continues to spend like a drunken sailor, raising your taxes as it goes.?
  
  The battle lines are clearly drawn here (something that wasn't evident in 2008) and the side the Dems are on is a cliff straight down.
  
  
  This is an opportuinity to expose the Democratic Party for what it really is....a group of power hungry elitist liars who have never done a damn thing for the middle class or the little guy. They buy votes for their party by giving away government largesse ( but those receiving are really paying for it anyway)... their goal is not to empower people to live independent fruitful lives, but to trap and ensnare them into dependency on government and by extension, to them. One has only to look at their campaign ads.....someone is always to blame....insurance companies, banks, wall street, corporations, China, etc etc etc pick your boogie man........for the problems of the little guy.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown - I usually learn something from your posts, so I always appreciate them. Although we are going to agree to disagree about the Dept of Education. I understand the minimal gov't oversight in order to keep up with the "foreign Joneses" of the world, however that can be done within the boundaries of a different department...say Health and Human Services for example. Education is local, it is funded locally, teachers are hired locally, and there is absolutely no need for federal oversight of the entire education system. I'm not sure what Constitutional section grants this as it isn't the all-powerful Commerce Clause, which seems to be the pillar of federal government explosion into our lives.
  
  You are tied to Washington, so I believe your statement about the Dept of Energy. However, I had no idea that civilians have control over our nuclear weapons. The only civilian I know of that has control is the President. If this is the case, then shouldn't nuclear weapons control be in some other department...like State or Defense? Other than this function, what does the Dept of Energy do to Americans that we just couldn't live without?
  
  As written before, the service on our national debt will very soon be the #1 budget item....above defense, homeland security, ObamaKare, border security... you name it. It is about to devour our nation from within unless we literally stop spending. Yet...the elitists keep on keeping on, creating dependency class after dependency class. You have even become dependent on the 2 Departments listed above that you won't even consider eliminating them or moving them. Dependency is a drug...like morphine. Once on it, it's extremely difficult to get off of it. If SS, Medicare, and Medicaid need trimmed or have portions cut, then so be it...or it won't even be.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Education is local. However, it still needs minimal oversight by the feds to ensure that certain districts are not lagging behind and not getting results. I'm for a limited role in this, but a role none the less.
  
  On the DoE. The civilian control is two phases, one the DoE build, maintain, store in some cases, and dismantle all the U.S. nuclear weapons. That is one phase. The second is the civilian control leadership in the DoE, and the SECDEF as well as the President.
  The DoE for the nuclear weapons involves science facilities, labs and storage facilities, like Kansas City, Los Alamos Labs, Lawerence Livermore Labs, Pantex facility in Texas, Sandia Labs, Oak Ridge facility, etc. Those are staffed with not just analysts, but scientists.
  
  Keeping in Energy makes sense as at those labs and facilities, scientists are also working in other science issues like fusion (at the National Ignition Facility, which is also a weapons facility), and solving issues related to nuclear forensics, and even aspects of nuclear power usage. So there is cross over between weapons and future energy production. This is a tradition that does back to the 1950s and makes sense. Changing it or ending it makes little sense.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;496281 wrote:ptown - I usually learn something from your posts, so I always appreciate them. Although we are going to agree to disagree about the Dept of Education. I understand the minimal gov't oversight in order to keep up with the "foreign Joneses" of the world, however that can be done within the boundaries of a different department...say Health and Human Services for example. Education is local, it is funded locally, teachers are hired locally, and there is absolutely no need for federal oversight of the entire education system. I'm not sure what Constitutional section grants this as it isn't the all-powerful Commerce Clause, which seems to be the pillar of federal government explosion into our lives.
  
  You are tied to Washington, so I believe your statement about the Dept of Energy. However, I had no idea that civilians have control over our nuclear weapons. The only civilian I know of that has control is the President. If this is the case, then shouldn't nuclear weapons control be in some other department...like State or Defense? Other than this function, what does the Dept of Energy do to Americans that we just couldn't live without?
  
  As written before, the service on our national debt will very soon be the #1 budget item....above defense, homeland security, ObamaKare, border security... you name it. It is about to devour our nation from within unless we literally stop spending. Yet...the elitists keep on keeping on, creating dependency class after dependency class. You have even become dependent on the 2 Departments listed above that you won't even consider eliminating them or moving them. Dependency is a drug...like morphine. Once on it, it's extremely difficult to get off of it. If SS, Medicare, and Medicaid need trimmed or have portions cut, then so be it...or it won't even be.

  I'm probably misreading (because I'm dumb, but you've all figured that out already), but it sounds like you're not so much upset at what the departments do but the naming conventions of them.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BTW, it just dawned on me, that the proposed spending freeze makes no sense. Considering R's, and the administration have been adamant about funding the national labs that are under the Department of Energy. The Obama administration is putting forth a plan for $80 billion for our weapons labs under the DoE for the next ten years, and the R's want $10 billion in addition to that. Now, those funds are spread throughout the Energy Budget, Water and other various budget committees.
  
  If there is a spending freeze, obviously, they would have to have some areas not covered.
  
  Which begs the questions, what exact budget items do they propose to freeze/ cut?
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;497458 wrote:I'm probably misreading (because I'm dumb, but you've all figured that out already), but it sounds like you're not so much upset at what the departments do but the naming conventions of them.

  
  In the process of evaluating what is necessary vs. what is gingerbread, you have to examine their purpose, their mission, and their function. If you can eliminate 2 whole departments, while keeping their "essential" services intact, then that would save billions. I don't have the statistics, but common sense (what is that? lol) tells me eliminating significant portions of unnecessary departments would indeed save money. Also - just the act of eliminating one would show commitment, intentions, and action that the budget deficit is real and everyone better pull their own weight.
  
  As a comparable event, when the Cold War was ending, there was a base closing commission set up and there was much gnashing of teeth and screaming from the affected cities and sites. In the end, if the bases were unnecessary, then they had their "essential" duties taken over by others and they were indeed closed. Made sense then...makes sense now.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;497707 wrote:If there is a spending freeze, obviously, they would have to have some areas not covered.
  
  Which begs the questions, what exact budget items do they propose to freeze/ cut?

  
  Looks to me like we need some people with testicles to make tough decisions. We need someone to get all of the information, make choices, and take action. Sounds like a certain governor from New Jersey would be perfect for such a role.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;497718 wrote:Looks to me like we need some people with testicles to make tough decisions. We need someone to get all of the information, make choices, and take action. Sounds like a certain governor from New Jersey would be perfect for such a role.

  
  
  I agree. But, not just one person, a whole group of people in key positions, such as Speaker, Senate Prez, Committee Chairs, etc.
  If you want to change the budget, it is going to take both parties agreeing on common measures. I honestly am pessimistic about that given our current climate.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;496101 wrote:What is really laughable is the Democrats notion that they can continue to increase spending and entitlements and that they are going to tax a select few to cover it and the rest of the deficit. It is completely disingenuous to purport that the middle class is not going to pay, directly and indirectly.
  
  Hypothetically...let's say after all is said and done...and the budget is pared...and it is deemed necessary to raise taxes. Which are you as an american taxpayer going to support...A) a government that does its best to cut it's spending before raising taxes.....or B) a government that continues to spend like a drunken sailor, raising your taxes as it goes.?

  
  Yeah since those are really the choices....SMH. More like, choosing between a government that spends like a drunken sailor and has taken the official policy position that we ought not to increase the real receipts to pay for that spending or a government that spends like a drunken sailor and leaves open the option of paying for it or putting it on the credit card.
  
  But otherwise, that's it. Democrats are swindling elitists hoping to keep people down. That's it. That's what's really going on. Trial lawyer's nationwide walk in to their local Democratic Party office and say "Listen, I'd like to get in on this action of profiting off the citizenry by promising them puppy dog's and rainbows! This is why I want to be in civil service; so that I may use it as a vehicle to prosperity on the back of the working man!" Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are drinking their hot cocoa laughing at the ignorance of the masses. Scumbugs who know the real way to make it in a country ran by socialists; not by good ideas, hard work and entrepreneurial fortitude; but by putting on your Robin Hood tights, filing some papers with the Secretary of State and putting a capital "D" next to your name.
  
  You've nailed it on the head....the republicans and their brilliant policies of cutting taxes but no meaningful cuts in spending and running deficits in good economic times are the white knights that will save us from the wolves in sheeps clothing that are the democrats. It's the answer to all of our social ills....the magic of lowering taxes and all of their inefficient glory has power the likes of which a Wizard has never seen. The wisdom of making paying of debt the most crucial policy priority but drawing a line in the sand that increasing the amount of money to maybe use to pay off that debt is completely off the table; how can we not see? If only Americans could see that there's a clear fork in the road...that unending prosperity and small non-intrusive government will necessarily follow once we elect people with R next to their name.
  
  If only the veil of ignorance could be removed in time. If only.
• cosmosprivateer

  When Americans figure out that neither side (left or right) will do anything but take more of our labor dollars we may have a chance to get America on track again. The only way to send a message to these politicians is to vote in a new one every election.
  
  We elect these people to lead us so we don't have to lead ourselves. If we would teach our children to all be leaders at a young age we wouldn’t need these labor sucking greedy people at all.
• cosmosprivateer

  BGFalcons82;495793 wrote:By the way, this is the evil satan Paul Ryan's plan in most part. He sees the way out and we need to follow him and stop spending and spending and spending and spending and.........................

  Yes we should follow the leader like Zombies.
  
  I do live in Zombie Land.
  
  Spending and the debt is fake anyway every country in the world has debt even China. Just who do they owe??????
  
  The numbers show we owe China just under a trillion dollars all Oduis debt created by a government that tossed its people over board a 100 years ago.
  
  http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2002/07globaleconomics_kremer.aspx
  
  The alarm clock is ringing time to wake up.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;496292 wrote:Education is local. However, it still needs minimal oversight by the feds to ensure that certain districts are not lagging behind and not getting results. I'm for a limited role in this, but a role none the less.

  So only the feds are capable to ensure that certain districts are not lagging behind and getting results? Why do you think the states and the people are incapable of ensuring a proper education for their children without a federal department of education? We were told 40yrs ago that the feds would ensure that no Americans lag behind in poverty.
  
  Since when is the word minimal found anywhere in the federal vocabulary? When their policies fail it is only because they needed more revenue, more power, and more oversight. There are areas that the feds can give up oversight and trust the people and the states. They cannot control everything. The "pie in the sky" promises that federal politicians are making are becoming ever more hollow and ridiculous as they drive our nation further into debt and financial insecurity.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  majorspark;498620 wrote:So only the feds are capable to ensure that certain districts are not lagging behind and getting results? Why do you think the states and the people are incapable of ensuring a proper education for their children without a federal department of education? We were told 40yrs ago that the feds would ensure that no Americans lag behind in poverty.
  
  Since when is the word minimal found anywhere in the federal vocabulary? When their policies fail it is only because they needed more revenue, more power, and more oversight. There are areas that the feds can give up oversight and trust the people and the states. They cannot control everything. The "pie in the sky" promises that federal politicians are making are becoming ever more hollow and ridiculous as they drive our nation further into debt and financial insecurity.

  
  When it starts to impact the economic foundation and national security of the United States, the feds come in.
  
  I agree it should be a limited role, with very broad, standards. But, there should still be something there to ensure some states are not falling beyond or that the U.S. does not keep falling beyond the rest of the world in education. We are awful in science and math, two crucial areas in this global economy.
  
  Long term, we are in a fight with the Chinese on education and jobs. I want the country to be educated to the highest standards.
• HitsRus

  

  But otherwise, that's it. Democrats are swindling elitists hoping to keep people down.

  Is it not the net effect of their policies? The middle class will pay the tax one way or another and yes, you could say it is a swindle to put it out that the tax increase will only affect the (Dem label) "rich".
  
  
  
  Yeah, you've nailed it too. let's paint the "R''s as equally responsible for 111 NEW spending proposals by those in charge...totalling $1.4 trillion over 5 years.
  http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25496
  
  Stop new spending proposals FIRST. Stop. Just STOP. I really don't think that is too much too ask.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;498659 wrote:When it starts to impact the economic foundation and national security of the United States, the feds come in.

  I understand under this aspect maybe the feds could play a beneficial role. But they do not have the authority to just "come in". We have a constitution that says when they can "come in".
  

  ptown_trojans_1;498659 wrote:I agree it should be a limited role, with very broad, standards. But, there should still be something there to ensure some states are not falling beyond or that the U.S. does not keep falling beyond the rest of the world in education. We are awful in science and math, two crucial areas in this global economy.

  
  
  Outside of the amendment process how can we be assured the feds role will be limited? In order to truly limit the feds role the states and the people must define what powers they should relinquish. In other words when the feds can "come in".
  

  ptown_trojans_1;498659 wrote:Long term, we are in a fight with the Chinese on education and jobs. I want the country to be educated to the highest standards.

  We all can agree on this. Lets just do it the American way. Not the Chinese way of central control. What is wrong with defining the federal governments power to intervene and involve itself in the education of our children with an amendment? If education is local lets codify in the constitution when the feds can play their role. Yes it is a difficult process and it should be.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  majorspark;498727 wrote:I understand under this aspect maybe the feds could play a beneficial role. But they do not have the authority to just "come in". We have a constitution that says when they can "come in".
  
  
  
  Outside of the amendment process how can we be assured the feds role will be limited? In order to truly limit the feds role the states and the people must define what powers they should relinquish. In other words when the feds can "come in".
  
  
  
  We all can agree on this. Lets just do it the American way. Not the Chinese way of central control. What is wrong with defining the federal governments power to intervene and involve itself in the education of our children with an amendment? If education is local lets codify in the constitution when the feds can play their role. Yes it is a difficult process and it should be.

  
  I actually agree on all counts. I'm not for getting rid of the Department of Education, but am all for huge restructuring and reforms of its relationship with the states. I'm all for concrete answers to the questions you raised and a redefinition of the Department's role in educating the country's youth. I think we can all agree the current situation and framework is not working.
• FatHobbit

  

  BoatShoes;497858 wrote:Yeah since those are really the choices....SMH. More like, choosing between a government that spends like a drunken sailor and... or a government that spends like a drunken sailor and...

  I think that about covers it.
  

  BoatShoes;497858 wrote:Trial lawyer's nationwide walk in to their local Party office and say "Listen, I'd like to get in on this action of profiting off the citizenry by promising them ...! This is why I want to be in civil service; so that I may use it as a vehicle to prosperity on the back of the working man!"

  
  I think you're on to something, but it applies qually to both parties.
• FatHobbit

  

  http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2010/09/30/copy/obama-says-gop-pledge-to-voters-doesnt-add-up.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
  
  Obama says GOP pledge doesn't add up. Lol, I wouldn't be shocked if the math doesn't add up, but someone who thinks we can pay for medical coverage for everyone without raising taxes should not complain about math not adding up.
  

  The math behind the Republican plan, which includes keeping the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while balancing the budget, "doesn't add up," Obama said.