So next elections when the Republicans again run on "lowering taxes"

[bluelang]

Will the entire internet rise up as one and say "No sir! You mean increasing the deficit!"

Will it happen? It'll happen, right? Because we're smarter now?

[vangator1]

It's hard to counter all the moochers who put the worthless one back in office, but you gotta try.

[g8orbill]

if the pubs don't nominate a conservative they will lose again

they have to run on cutting spending and getting our finances in order

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

if the pubs don't nominate a conservative they will lose again

they have to run on cutting spending and getting our finances in order

They always run on that. They just abandon it if elected.

[QGator2414]

They need to run on a flat tax no deductions or the fair tax.

And the vast majority of people will need to have a higher effective rate at first to pay for our greed.

Unfortunately our greed and selfishness is why that platform cannot win. I wish more people cared about what we are leaving our kids.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

They always run on that. They just abandon it if elected.

Unfortunately this is true.

[wgbgator]

Its easy to run on cutting spending, which people like in abstract. Everyone runs on cutting unecessary spending, D & R. What people don't like is specifics on what gets cut, because it turns out people do find that spending necessary.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Will the entire internet rise up as one and say "No sir! You mean increasing the deficit!"

Will it happen? It'll happen, right? Because we're smarter now?

They will and they'll win on it because the hubris and resulting overreaching of this administration (like the last) will leave a perfect opening for them. This administration is all about payback and nothing about addressing the current problems in this country.

We hit the biggest economic downturn since '29-41 and what's this administration's main focus? Health Care. Why? Because they'd been pining for it since the mid-90s and they finally had the votes. Who cares whether it was the issue of the day, whether it was good or whether it would even correct the problems it was intended to correct. The votes were there and it was time for payback.
Now, while mired in a hellishly slow recovery, we have an administration that is hell bent on raising taxes with no concern whatsoever about reeling in spending. Again, payback in lieu of addressing the real issues. Hated the Bush taxcuts then and now they have the votes and cache' to get them repealed whether that's good for the recovery or not. Just like the previous administration with their unneeded tax cuts, jacked up energy bill and their lame-assed reasoning (the real reason can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/)for entering us into Vietnam squared.

And when Bush/Rubio get elected in 2016, we'll get payback once again. Not a day goes by lately when I'm not happy that I never had kids.

[g8orbill]

hell- I just hope there is a next election

[PSGator66]

The increase in our debt has never been increased greater than under Obama. Most Americans have exactly zero clue about his policies voted for him on principal.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Its easy to run on cutting spending, which people like in abstract. Everyone runs on cutting unecessary spending, D & R. What people don't like is specifics on what gets cut, because it turns out people do find that spending necessary.

This is the part I disagree with.

It is about "want" not necessity. One need not look farther than entitlement reform.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

They will and they'll win on it because the hubris and resulting overreaching of this administration (like the last) will leave a perfect opening for them. This administration is all about payback and nothing about addressing the current problems in this country.

We hit the biggest economic downturn since '29-41 and what's this administration's main focus? Health Care. Why? Because they'd been pining for it since the mid-90s and they finally had the votes. Who cares whether it was the issue of the day, whether it was good or whether it would even correct the problems it was intended to correct. The votes were there and it was time for payback.
Now, while mired in a hellishly slow recovery, we have an administration that is hell bent on raising taxes with no concern whatsoever about reeling in spending. Again, payback in lieu of addressing the real issues. Hated the Bush taxcuts then and now they have the votes and cache' to get them repealed whether that's good for the recovery or not. Just like the previous administration with their unneeded tax cuts, jacked up energy bill and their lame-assed reasoning (the real reason can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/)for entering us into Vietnam squared.

And when Bush/Rubio get elected in 2016, we'll get payback once again. Not a day goes by lately when I'm not happy that I never had kids.

Why? The focus on healthcare was precisly because its major factor in our spending and will only get bigger as a percentage of GDP and more of a drain on the budget if left alone. The diagnosis was correct, though you may not agree with the treatment (Obamacare).

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

This is the part I disagree with.

It is about "want" not necessity. One need not look farther than entitlement reform.

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

Yep, which is pretty much the "dead, just hasn't stopped moving yet" threshold of a nation. I lli think a lot of us fathom all too well that a great many people find those necessary (let alone legitimate) components of government.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Yep, which is pretty much the "dead, just hasn't stopped moving yet" threshold of a nation. I lli think a lot of us fathom all too well that a great many people find those necessary (let alone legitimate) components of government.

Sure, I havent see anyone run on eliminating those things. Mostly just on making them worse by fully or partially privatizing them and passing on the bulk of the risk to citizens by turning them into defined contribution plans under the rhetoric of "strengthening" those programs. Its still a tacit admission that the government has some role to play in caring for the elderly.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

It is hard to fathom knowing most of the world only dreams of having utilities and clean running water.

Then again we are AMERICANS!

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by PSGator66

The increase in our debt has never been increased greater than under Obama. Most Americans have exactly zero clue about his policies voted for him on principal.

Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower per Forbes.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Sure, I havent see anyone run on eliminating those things. Mostly just on making them worse by fully or partially privatizing them and passing on the bulk of the risk to citizens by turning them into defined contribution plans under the rhetoric of "strengthening" those programs. Its still a tacit admission that the government has some role to play in caring for the elderly.

Why the elderly? Why not a "safety net" for everyone regardless of age that provides "necessities" not "wants"?

Then my only beef would be it should be run from the local level and not the federal level...

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Why? The focus on healthcare was precisly because its major factor in our spending and will only get bigger as a percentage of GDP and more of a drain on the budget if left alone. The diagnosis was correct, though you may not agree with the treatment (Obamacare).

It was hardly the priority issue of the time - unless you've been pining for payback since '94. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact remains that this policy - and just about every other policy from this administration - is more about political payback for 2000-2008 than anything else and forcing their will on their political opponents.

And I won't even wade into the morass that is Obamacare only to say that it will be a complete failure when all is said and done, that the "savings" they project will never materalize and that it will actually "cost" us more in the long run. Oh, and that the insurance companies have already figured out how to "game" it. This was never an attempt to solve the healthcare issue as much as it was a chance to gain victory over an opponent. It's motivation as shallow as your's and mine on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

Lastly, let me ask you this. Why was no (R) healthcare idea even considered in this bill? I mean, how can you have comprehensive healthcare without some kind of tort reform? Why was selling across state lines never considered? Full tax decuctions for services performed on the needy? None of it was there. None was even considered. And you're telling me this wasn't about payback? Puhleeze.

That's okay though. Celebrate now. You and your side will be crying in 2016-24 as that administration spends 8 years trying to undo this administration's policies.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I know its hard for you to fathom, but a great many people do find things like SS and Medicare necessary components of government.

They are valuable. But do you honestly believe that they do not need to be restructured? For their own good?

And shouldn't that restructuring be done in an earnest and honest fashion, with all ideas on the table, in an effort to truly fix the problem? Or should everything be about political gamesmanship and beating the opponent?