Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Varchild2008 (84.36)

Varchild quits the Republican Party....

Recs

18

July 27, 2011 – Comments (21)

That's it.... I am out!

I say let the bums in Washington just continue to destroy America as they can not be stopped anyhow.

We have Americans that think $$$$ is being cut whether it is Boehner or Reid's plan...  Uhm...no.

Unless someone proves that 1 penny of money is being cut then I am OUT of the Republican party.

Short of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to do away with baseline budgeting I am done.

THE GOP STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN once again and the DEMOCRATS are worse.


And to top it off we have MITT ROMNEY in the lead in the polls?   *triple fantastic wretch!!!!*

Now I apologize to myself for not being aware of who Mitt Romney really was before I voted for him in 2008 GOP primary....  That has been an amazing scar on me.....

If I see Mitt Romney winning in the GOP Primary.....  Then there is absolutely NOTHING the Republican Party could conceivably do to win me back.

The Markets aren't panicking because we haven't put together a Debt Plan or Raised the Debt Ceiling.

The Markets are panicking because frankly.....it won't matter one BIT even if we did.

21 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 27, 2011 at 8:12 PM, soycapital (< 20) wrote:

even tho I am "conservative" I would never claim to be a Republican, after George Bush I lost all hope. I'll admit to being a little slow.

Report this comment
#2) On July 27, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Varchild2008 (84.36) wrote:

Same here.... I always said I was conservative not Republican to anyone that got that confused.

John Boehner's new plan is to cut the size of growth over 10 years by less than $1 trillion while allowing President Obama to spend $1 Trillion.

Cutting the size of growth isn't a cut.

Cutting less than you allow a President to spend is not a net net cut in spending.

We went from Cut Cap and Balance.....   To Spend Spend and Pretend.

Report this comment
#3) On July 27, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Varchild2008 (84.36) wrote:

P.S.  I'd rather have RON PAUL than Mitt Romney big time.

Anybody but MITT!!!!!

Report this comment
#4) On July 27, 2011 at 8:37 PM, soycapital (< 20) wrote:

To Spend Spend and Pretend.

yeah, this is the future American financial system you pretend and if I do too it will be okay? I don't think so as over time truth prevails!

Report this comment
#5) On July 27, 2011 at 8:42 PM, kdakota630 (31.51) wrote:

Varchild2008

That has been an amazing scar on me.

We all make mistakes.  First time I voted it was for the Communist Party.

Report this comment
#6) On July 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

varchild2008

I hear you.  I am voting for Ron Paul regardless of whether he gets the nomination.  I don't care about the party as they merged with democrats long ago to create a giant federal gov't.  Mit or TPaw could be the worst republicans of all time.  

I guess I one could clasify me as a tea partier or whatever, but is it so hard to have a smaller federal gov't?  Can't the states do anything?

Democrats are laughing :( 

 

Report this comment
#7) On July 27, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Lynken (22.50) wrote:

I'll bite...

 Raising the debt ceiling =/= spending.  It means more borrowing to take care of those "big government" necessities like social security/medicare/social safety net programs.   

You aren't going to get a balanced budget amendment.  Period.  The numbers to actually pass such an amendment just aren't there.  To stomp your feet and whine that you need a balanced budgement amendment with the current party representation in congress is doing a disservice to the nation as the only thing that it would get done is waste a LOT of time. And would be purely for political gain to the public that watches but doesn't know any better.  

That doesn't mean that it's a negative if there is no BBA, it just means that like every other time the debt ceiling was raised this would be no different.  It's not THAT the debt celing is raised, it's what you do once it's raised that matters.  Defaulting is not a sane option.  To default would put us back to 2008 economic levels or worse.  The credit downgrade that may happen is already a black eye in the making... Who do you think is going to get the blame for this crap?  The democrats who have more than insulted their base by offering cut after cut after cut into programs that democrats LOVE and willing to accept zero tax increases, or the Republicans who come to the negotiating table asking for everything and more while giving nothing in return and who's sole goal is to make Obama a one-term president?  This blame's on Republicans, I gotta say.  

Also, Mitt Romney is your only clear leader in the Republican polls, but he's not a good enough candidate for half of the conservative base because he's Mormon (lol fundies), or not conservative enough.  Everyone else is either uninspiring, WAAYYYY too crazy to get elected (Bachmann, Santorum) or just flat out fringe base that's an extreme minority of the populous (Ron Paul).  Face it, Ron Paul is not going to get elected.  In fact, the growing fan base of Ron Paul is only serving to split the Republican Party in twain thus weakening it... and the Tea Party certainly isn't helping anyone but themselves and the soap boxes creaking underneath them.

 Also, if you think that it only took two years to get to where we are you are delusional.  Flat.  Out.  Delusional.  Too bad this is how it's being sold in the media.

Report this comment
#8) On July 27, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Lynken (22.50) wrote:

I'll bite...

 Raising the debt ceiling =/= spending.  It means more borrowing to take care of those "big government" necessities like social security/medicare/social safety net programs.   

You aren't going to get a balanced budget amendment.  Period.  The numbers to actually pass such an amendment just aren't there.  To stomp your feet and whine that you need a balanced budgement amendment with the current party representation in congress is doing a disservice to the nation as the only thing that it would get done is waste a LOT of time. And would be purely for political gain to the public that watches but doesn't know any better.  

That doesn't mean that it's a negative if there is no BBA, it just means that like every other time the debt ceiling was raised this would be no different.  It's not THAT the debt celing is raised, it's what you do once it's raised that matters.  Defaulting is not a sane option.  To default would put us back to 2008 economic levels or worse.  The credit downgrade that may happen is already a black eye in the making... Who do you think is going to get the blame for this crap?  The democrats who have more than insulted their base by offering cut after cut after cut into programs that democrats LOVE and willing to accept zero tax increases, or the Republicans who come to the negotiating table asking for everything and more while giving nothing in return and who's sole goal is to make Obama a one-term president?  This blame's on Republicans, I gotta say.  

Also, Mitt Romney is your only clear leader in the Republican polls, but he's not a good enough candidate for half of the conservative base because he's Mormon (lol fundies), or not conservative enough.  Everyone else is either uninspiring, WAAYYYY too crazy to get elected (Bachmann, Santorum) or just flat out fringe base that's an extreme minority of the populous (Ron Paul).  Face it, Ron Paul is not going to get elected.  In fact, the growing fan base of Ron Paul is only serving to split the Republican Party in twain thus weakening it... and the Tea Party certainly isn't helping anyone but themselves and the soap boxes creaking underneath them.

 Also, if you think that it only took two years to get to where we are you are delusional.  Flat.  Out.  Delusional.  Too bad this is how it's being sold in the media.

Report this comment
#9) On July 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Lynken (22.50) wrote:

Apologies for the double comment, the interface for the forums can be slightly laggy.

Report this comment
#10) On July 27, 2011 at 9:55 PM, totallyoblivious (28.88) wrote:

It's good to see someone's quitting the Republican party, I quit the Democratic party over their fiscal policies.  I currently agree with neither party, not even close.  Entitlement programs need to go, and revenue has to increase.  Both, not one or the other. 

I favor phasing out medicare, medicaid, and social security, drastically increasing estate taxes, bumping up capital gains taxes by 5%, and reforming the income tax code so that there's no longer any exemptions/dependents/etc., just a base rate that scales upwards based on income with an upper end around 35%.  Neither party has the balls to do this, but until revenue is actually HIGHER than spending, this country's screwed, and the only way to get there is a combination of severe spending cuts and reforming the tax codes to increase revenues.

Report this comment
#11) On July 27, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.34) wrote:

All of what you say it true Lynken and it doesn't matter. Without a balance budge amendment this country is a goner. Screw compromise.

Without Ron Paul as president, this country is a goner. Romney or Obama... makes no difference. Screw compromise.

Vote Ron Paul if you love America. 

Thats what I believe anyway. 

Report this comment
#12) On July 27, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Lynken (22.50) wrote:

People are so quick to clamor for "CUT CUT CUT" and don't realize just what goes into those cuts, who they affect and how they are affected.  It's like a blanket statement that to Cut somehow equals prosperity. 

A cut to "entitlement" programs is disastrous.  I'm not defending their existence, but to just "get rid of them" is short-sighted and lacking empathy.  Ever met someone on welfare?  Food stamps?  Medicaid?  The vast majority of people that depend on these programs aren't freeloading bums that media outlets would have you believe, and I would put good money on the line that those joining the rancor to CUT ENTITLEMENTS RAWR don't know a thing.  Work as a cashier at a grocery store like I did in high school years ago and you'll understand that these people are backed into a corner the majority of the time and can't "pull themselves up by the boot straps" like some conservative ideologue would have you believe. 

 @Frankydontfailme: I'll for for whomever I please, and still love America.  (I don't vote for people who are illiterate in science so the vast majority of Republicans are off the table)

@totallyoblivious: ... nice name. 

Report this comment
#13) On July 27, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.34) wrote:

I'm not proposing getting rid of entitlements all at once.... I'm well aware of the consequences, but we must slowly faze them out.

I say we prioritize keeping our citizens afloat and stop paying interest on our debt to anyone (boohoo financial markets in turmoil boohoo), eliminate the fed (and get rid of the BS debt we owe them), bring all soldiers home and stop paying for BS wars, and gradually decrease entitlements.

You may still love your country but you are voting to destroy it (in my opinion). 

Report this comment
#14) On July 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM, CluckChicken (49.71) wrote:

"Short of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to do away with baseline budgeting I am done."

A Balanced budget amendment is just idiotic. Ties the hands of the government in events of emergencies and greatly limits it's ability to react to economic needs.

Just picture: it is Feb after a BBA has been radified, we are several months into the budget, which is balanced, and then the big one finally hits CA. The government's response is: Sorry we would like to help all of you in CA but since we didn't put the billions needed to respond to such a large event into the budget you will just have to deal with it yourselves.

Or: Those crazy North Koreans just attacked the South on New Year's eve, our response: Say SK can you hold out till Oct when we will pass our next budget so that we can fund the military action that we have agreed too in the event you were attack?

Those are just two silly possible events. If you feel those are too silly just trade NOLA for CA and 9/11 for NK/SK. Of course they tried to force a BB in the 1930s in it only deepend the depression then.

Report this comment
#15) On July 28, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Lynken (22.50) wrote:

Even by some remote chance that Ron Paul was elected President, do you think he's going to swoop in and enact all of his Libertarian quirks and policies on the American public?  He's not a superhero, just a guy with some good ideas, and some not so good ones. 

 The world is tied together by the sovereign debt intertwined amongst all established nations and you can't just snip the strings that tie America to other countries by just "not paying and damn the consequences".  If you're going to truly make monumental changes for a positive future it has to be done gradually much akin to turning a cruise ship 180 degrees.  It takes time, but it'll get done.  Obama's had two years to "fix" a nation on the brink of financial clusterfrakery thanks to two unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, lack of mortgage derivative regulations, etc. that got us here in the first place and people have the gall to say "you've had plenty of time, you're done"... 

I'm being objective about this, too.  Think back to three years ago and compare it to current days and events.  If your conclusion is that we're worse off now than then you just might be part of the problem because SPY alone can give you a snapshot of the progress made so far steering the economic cruise ship.  

Report this comment
#16) On July 28, 2011 at 1:20 AM, awallejr (80.13) wrote:

Personally I like this

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/the-one-percent-solution/619570

Push it.

Report this comment
#17) On July 28, 2011 at 5:24 AM, cbwang888 (25.84) wrote:

The debt limit should be lifted to infinity and beyond, so the issue can be RIP. US Treasury owns Fed, the printing machine, the federal government just fool us and tell us that it isn't so. Inflation is the only way out so the debt can be matched by the US GDP number, measured by the falling dollar.

Politics are played by both party members so they can get elected and richer. Don't expect the same people doing the same things to come out with different results ...

 

 

Report this comment
#18) On July 28, 2011 at 12:55 PM, leohaas (91.57) wrote:

Varchild, to get your wish of Ron Paul being President, you should stay a Republican and vote for RP in the primaries. If RP does not win the primaries, there is plenty of time left to quit of the party.

Report this comment
#19) On July 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, JaysRage (93.90) wrote:

It is politically unpopular to cut entitlements.

It is politically unpopular to raise taxes.

It is politically unpopular to let our country sink into further debt.

Solution=pretend to cut entitlements and raise taxes, but somehow no one has their benefits cut or their taxes raises, because it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.   We go further into debt, but the public doesn't realize it or doesn't care.   Everyone celebrates the huge last minute success and pats each other on the back and tells the media what a grand triumph of democracy this great compromise is. 

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties are deeply flawed.   The whole system is in need of a shakeup.  

Report this comment
#20) On July 28, 2011 at 5:54 PM, outoffocus (24.48) wrote:

Well all I can say is congratulations. You finally realize that both parties suck.  The only thing I disagree with you on is the degree in which they suck.  They both equally suck. They are simply tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.  Neither party has America's best interest at heart.  Welcome to the growing list of Independents...

Report this comment
#21) On July 28, 2011 at 6:12 PM, AvianFlu (47.82) wrote:

Observation:
There is one major RINO running currently. The tea party vote is split among 5 or more candidates. When the field narrows down whoever the tea party candidate is they will be running much more competitively against Romney since the tea party vote will not be split 5 ways.

Third parties do not win. If you dislike the current crop of Republicans then you need to vote in actual conservatives. That worked great in the last election, but they are in a minority, and they don't have seniority yet.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement