Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

russiangambit (29.94)

I am mad at the republicans

Recs

35

November 03, 2010 – Comments (25)

Today after sweeping republican victory last night we started hearing about their plans for us. And I am immediately reminded of the Bush years, the republicans didn’t change a bit. They have such twisted logic, I can’t stand it.

 

It goes like this:

Our voters want to cut spending, they want smaller government. So, we re going to cut Obamacare. Excuse me, but we haven’t yet spent anything on Obamacare how is it the culprit. How about defense instead of various subsidies? Oh no, we are not going to her about that. Obamacare is the root of all evil.

Immediately then we switch to extending Bush tax cuts because they will support the economy. Really, how are they working so far? They are still in place yet Fed has to do rounds and rounds of various monetary/ liquidity programs to keep us afloat? And I though we want smaller government and less spending and balanced budget. I guess, it doesn’t apply to Bush’s tax cuts because they were instituted by republicans. Spending is only bad when it can be blamed on democrats.

 

Since most people on this board voted republican (I am guessing), what do you guys think. Is that what you voted for?

25 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 03, 2010 at 8:33 PM, chrisnicks (< 20) wrote:

yup

Report this comment
#2) On November 03, 2010 at 8:44 PM, ajtrombone (< 20) wrote:

I side with the republicans not because I trust them to cut spending, but because I trust them not not increase entitlements.  Entitlements are a load of B.S. that will sink or heavily weaken any country.  I was born and raised that everyone should care for themselves.  Out of the kindness of my heart I give to charity, but I do not believe that people should be forced to "give" (taxes) to charity (entitlements in this case).  Anyways, what is your case for voting democrat over republican. What do they do better?

Report this comment
#3) On November 03, 2010 at 8:52 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

I agree with you Russian.  I think they are gun shy to really address the problem.  As far as the tax cut I think that is a reaction to questions asked of Obama by the media.

We need our focus on cutting spending.  A logical play would be defense.  

My guess is very little will be done in the next 2 yrs. Republicans only have one leg of a three leg stool.  Hopefully, they can keep us from expanding the debt.  I can only hope.  

 

Report this comment
#4) On November 03, 2010 at 9:19 PM, rhallbick (99.73) wrote:

Since most people on this board voted republican (I am guessing)

I voted for some Republicans, some Democrats and one Libertarian.  For some offices, I didn't vote for anyone because there wasn't anyone competent running.  I thought that was rather odd, what with the unemployment rate being so high.

Report this comment
#5) On November 03, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

@ajtrombone,

 

Pal, if you do not think that the Bush tax cuts are an entitlement program in disguise, you have a two-sided definition of entitlement program and need to readjust.  The tax cuts are essentially an entitlement program for the rich, so they can keep more of their mone.

 

Bear in mind that decades ago the tax rates were much higher, so by keeping them reduced per BTC, you are providing the wealthy with an entitlement to money.  So, if you want to remove all entitlements, remove the BTC and lets pay off our national debt.

 

I am expecting a 2 year period of pionting fingres and a Hell no attitude from the Republicans, who will find themselves ot of jobs in 2 years.  So, the question becomes, is the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog? 

Report this comment
#6) On November 03, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

forgot to say +1 rec!

 

Prost

Report this comment
#7) On November 03, 2010 at 9:38 PM, lctycoon (< 20) wrote:

Obama's own budget predicts $1 Trillion plus deficits annually for the next decade, driven almost entirely by increases in Social Security, Welfare, and other social programs.  This assumes 4% GDP growth annually, which is not possible, but we will still assume that it is.

To put that in perspective, we could cut military spending to $0 annually and still have bigger annual deficits than we had under Bush.  Furthermore, we could let the tax cuts expire for the top two brackets under that scenario, and we would still have bigger deficits than we had under Bush.  We could let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, and it would make the deficit sustainable for a short while, but then it would still balloon after 2020.

The IMF has stated that in order to maintain the status quo - i.e. without cutting spending, then the USA must immediately and permanently double all taxes (Income, FICA, gasoline... everything) and keep them there for the next 75 years.

I do not like the Republicans... but I do not think that the Democrats are willing to let go of their social spending.

The military is not the budget problem... entitlements and social programs are.

To really put this in perspective, in 15 years, the only way to balance the budget, without reducing entitlements or raising taxes, will be to reduce all government spending to $0 except the entitlements.

Report this comment
#8) On November 03, 2010 at 9:41 PM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

> I am expecting a 2 year period of pionting fingres and a Hell no attitude from the Republicans, who will find themselves ot of jobs in 2 years.  So, the question becomes, is the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog? 

And that is the bottom line, isn't it - what does this kind of ping-pong accomplishes for the country? 2 parties keep blaming each other and nothing gets done.

I am very disapointed that the establishment republicans got in while more libertarian leaning tea partiers lost. I wanted to see if tea partiers could shake up Washington DC a little bit.

Report this comment
#9) On November 03, 2010 at 9:45 PM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

> To put that in perspective, we could cut military spending to $0 annually and still have bigger annual deficits than we had under Bush. 

How do you account for 2 wars that started under Bush? Yes, the expenses are showing up only now, especially the long terms expenses that have to do with caring for disabled vets, we'll have to carry them for next 40-50 years now. The world is less friendly towards the US now. Plus, we still have to keep troops in Iraq and Afganistan  to maintain the order there.

It is like you spending the money and then blaming the debt on your wife because you have shared liabilities. 

 

Report this comment
#10) On November 03, 2010 at 9:58 PM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

> To really put this in perspective, in 15 years, the only way to balance the budget, without reducing entitlements or raising taxes, will be to reduce all government spending to $0 except the entitlements.

So, how does it jive with Bush tax cuts?

Let me ask you another question - what do you think when you hear that US forces carried a strategic bomb strike in that or this place? I think - another million of tax payer dollars down the drain. You know all these military things - smart bombs, planes are pretty expensive. 

Report this comment
#11) On November 03, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Option1307 (30.47) wrote:

2 parties keep blaming each other and nothing gets done.

Completely agree.

We really don't have a choice between parties, they both give us the same garbage election after election. Elections and poltics is just a game in the US, nothing more and nothing less. Sad story all around. 

For once I would just like a politician to stand by what they say and believe in. At this point I'd probably vote for any poltical affiliation if they actually stood their ground. Come out and say your a socialist (and not the mickey mouse crap most of us Americans think, the real kind) and I'll vote for you. Not because I like your policies, but because you actually have the courage to stand up for what you believe in.

 

 

Report this comment
#12) On November 03, 2010 at 10:22 PM, MichaelMolenaar (< 20) wrote:

The only election I cared about was Prop 19 in California. The rest was a footnote.

Report this comment
#13) On November 03, 2010 at 10:40 PM, starbucks4ever (99.54) wrote:

Once a Crow found a piece of cheese and retired to a branch to eat it. Then a Fox approached the tree and said: "Hey, Crow, are you going to vote for the Republicans or for the Democrats?" "Republicans" - said the Crow and the cheese fell out. "I wonder, - the Crow thought - if I said "Democrats" - would that make any difference?"

So I did not go to vote because I did not want to be that crow. 

Report this comment
#14) On November 03, 2010 at 10:55 PM, topsecret10 (< 20) wrote:

Wed Nov 3, 2010 6:19pm EDT

* Republicans win at least 18 state legislative chambers

* Republicans now control 54 state legislative chambers

* Gains may help Republicans pick up more U.S. House seats (Updates Republican gains, comments, redistricting measures)

By Karen Pierog

CHICAGO, Nov 3 (Reuters) - The surge that gave Republicans control of the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday also shook up state legislatures, giving Republicans the power to potentially cement their hold in Congress for the next decade.

In most states, legislatures will be redrawing electoral districts for the U.S. House -- an adjustment of boundaries every 10 years that tends to favor the party in charge in each state.

The big Republican Party wins at the state level give it the edge in reinforcing its strength in the U.S. House.

Republicans took control of at least 18 state chambers from Democrats, according to Tim Storey, an elections analyst at the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

"The Republicans really swamped the Democrats," he said, noting that Republicans will be in the best position to control congressional redistricting since modern remapping began in the 1970s.

Republicans' heavy presence on the state level could allow the party to preserve, or add, between 15 and 25 U.S. House seats through redistricting, said Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which poured millions of dollars into state legislative races.

But Alan Abramowitz, political science professor at Emory University, said redistricting may make a marginal difference.

The 2012 elections could swing back to favor Democrats and will likely turn on factors such as the state of the economy and voters' perception of President Barack Obama, he said.

The party in control of the White House almost always loses congressional and state legislative seats in midterm elections and 2010 was no exception.

Republicans saw a net gain of at least 680 seats in state legislatures, giving them control of chambers in Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the NCSL reported.

Storey said four chambers remain in play, including the New York Senate.

Election results so far have Republicans in charge of 54 legislative chambers, with Democrats controlling 38 and two chambers with a partisan split -- the Alaska Senate and the Oregon House. Control of four chambers remains undecided.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0328435720101103

Report this comment
#15) On November 03, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Superball (85.34) wrote:

I don't like extremists, whether they be terrorists, religious fanatics, or political idealogues.  When someone goes to D.C. on the taxpayer's dime just to vote no on anything that comes from the opposing side, it is a waste of our money, and a disgrace to our country.  It takes courage and commitment to one's believe in our system to find common ground between opposing views, and that is something that the political extremists lack.

 It was a good day for the Republicans.  Let's hope they can repay the voters by earning their keep in D.C. this time. If they (R's, D's, T's and I's) all grab the olive branch and squeeze, we might find enough oil to grease this economy into moving again.

Report this comment
#16) On November 04, 2010 at 12:06 AM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"Bear in mind that decades ago the tax rates were much higher..."

...and not many decades prior to that, the tax rates were ZERO.  There was no federal income tax, and the constitition didn't grant Congress the authority to institute such an income tax in the first place. 

 

Report this comment
#17) On November 04, 2010 at 12:07 AM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"...Constitution..."

Report this comment
#18) On November 04, 2010 at 2:30 AM, zymok (42.97) wrote:

"Pal, if you do not think that the Bush tax cuts are an entitlement program in disguise, you have a two-sided definition of entitlement program and need to readjust.  The tax cuts are essentially an entitlement program for the rich, so they can keep more of their mone."

 What a concept!  That people might be entitled to their money!

Please be careful about posting such dangerous nonsense.  If people get the idea that they have a legitimate claim to their own money, they might start demanding that their tax dollars be spent in sensible and responsible ways, and then where would we be?

Report this comment
#19) On November 04, 2010 at 3:27 AM, AbstractMotion (65.07) wrote:

While I didn't vote Republican in this particular election, but I think both democratic and republican policy share the same ill concieved idea that they can easily stimulate economic activity in excess of the revenue they're spending or forgoing through tax cuts.  In all honesty the Fed seems to have the same idea lately as well.  The U.S economy has a huge overhang of consumer and business debt to grind through stil, it isn't going to be fixed by injecting a few hundred billion dollars into an economy that's full of holes, no matter how you do it.

 

As for Obamacare, the rhetoric I've heard is not so much that it's causing a deficit increase as that it's hamstring growth because it contains some policy uncertainty and puts extra requirements on businesses to provide healthcare benefits.  Realistically I suspect the motivation is more of a spiteful attempt to take the jewel out of the Democrat's crown and to hit Obama where it hurts before 2012.  That said, I for one do believe that healthcare reform will likely be much more costly then projected due to how it's savings are structured, which are based largely off efficiency improvements and Medicare increase cuts.  Efficiency improvements are largely projected and not yet proven and denying Medicare increases is pretty much political suicide.  I don't think the whole bill needs to be repealed, there are some good things in there, but it'll likely need to be heavily amended to remain viable in mid to long term.

 

In general there's very few people in D.C who are really willing to admit and address the fact that we're out of easy choices to fix things or even keep them going.  If we're going to address the deficit and the debt it's going to take some real compromises regarding both taxes and spending.  The military is an easy target, but to Obama's credit, we've already started trimming down on the largest pork projects in it.  Like the bulk of our current economic problems the rest is just going to take time for the situation to stabilize in Afghanistan to the point where we can withdraw a significant number of troops.  In the long run entitlements and the sheer size of the national debt will be much bigger problems.

Report this comment
#20) On November 04, 2010 at 8:55 AM, lctycoon (< 20) wrote:

"So, how does it jive with Bush tax cuts?"

I fail to see how the Bush tax cuts make any difference.  Letting them expire for the top two brackets would increase the federal revenues by $70 billion a year.  That is a rounding error that makes no difference whatsoever in the long run.  Letting them expire for everyone will increase federal revenues by $300 billion a year.  That will help, but it still is not enough.

"How do you account for 2 wars that started under Bush? Yes, the expenses are showing up only now, especially the long terms expenses that have to do with caring for disabled vets, we'll have to carry them for next 40-50 years now. The world is less friendly towards the US now. Plus, we still have to keep troops in Iraq and Afganistan  to maintain the order there."

The total military spending on everything - both wars, all the military bases... everything - is $650 billion a year from the latest budget.  That is less than both welfare ($950 billion) and Social Security ($990 billion).  Reduce that to zero, and that is still a $450 billion deficit going forward into perpetuity.

How do we make up the remainder?

I am not trying to be political here - quite frankly, I don't care whether you feel that certain spending is justified.  I am only looking at the math and seeing that there is no way out of this situation without making reductions to the social programs and entitlements.

Report this comment
#21) On November 04, 2010 at 10:04 AM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

> The total military spending on everything - both wars, all the military bases... everything - is $650 billion a year from the latest budget

Yes, because most of the spending is off balance sheet. That is the first thing I require from either party - be honest, stop the lies. Stop putting things off balance sheet - wars, housing bailout, banks bailout.put everything in the open and be honest.

The cost of 2 wars is probvably somewhere in 3 trillion range already, and that is not counting what the consequences of them are going to be in the future.

As for the rounding error, 70 bil is not a rounding error to me. It could make 70000 people instant millionaires. it could pay for college degree for 700000 people.

Report this comment
#22) On November 04, 2010 at 10:09 AM, FreeMarkets (99.23) wrote:

#18 zymok - + 1 for your response.  Sadly many people feel the government owns 100% of what you make and CHOOSES to let you keep what they think you deserve.

Report this comment
#23) On November 04, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Schmacko (91.92) wrote:

Iraq has been drawn down significantly and Obama really does want to draw down Afghanistan too.  The top brass in the DOD are fully expecting and preparing for budget cuts.

I think the republicans sweeping in is more a statement of frustration at the economy still being jacked up in the age of instant gratification.  I think the big push was more just to vote out incumbants than it was to bring in republicans.  I fully expect the anti-incumbant trend to continue until the economy improves.

Report this comment
#24) On November 04, 2010 at 10:17 AM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

> Once a Crow found a piece of cheese and retired to a branch to eat it. Then a Fox approached the tree and said: "Hey, Crow, are you going to vote for the Republicans or for the Democrats?" "Republicans" - said the Crow and the cheese fell out. "I wonder, - the Crow thought - if I said "Democrats" - would that make any difference?"

Ha-ha. I would recommend everyone reads the wisdom of the ages contained in the stories by Krylov. People don't change, they are as guillable today as they were then.

Report this comment
#25) On November 04, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Borbality (52.53) wrote:

 I'm frustrated as well. I'm a younger voter (26) but becoming more fiscally conservative with age (and the circumstances we've witnessed recently). It's just too typical to see the talk for extending tax cuts and REPEALING Obamacare. I just think that politicians, media, and actual citizens in general forget that they're not just serving their own party! This is the whole country's (INCLUDING NON VOTERS OMG) long-term stability we're talking about.  

 "Political suicide"! I love how they all get a free pass because they know doing something productive and prudent will keep them from getting re-elected. For shame, everybody. What a world we live in.

All I know is the current health care situation is insane and unsustainable, and likely the biggest entitlement atomic bomb going forward, thanks to escalating costs. Call me cynical, but I can't help but seeing a reversion to the status quo as a big "screw you" to all the young people in the country. I doubt Obamacare would fix all the problems, but at least it's some sort of attempt at somehow bringing sanity. 

 Then again, these jokers aren't running for re-election in 50 years, and I would probably vote to screw the young people as well. 

All I know is nothing big is going to happen until it's absolutely necessary or too late.  

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement