| Republican “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill This time they really mean it |
|||
|
 Did they mean “Cut and Run” bill?
|
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Cut and Run bill?
3 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
The biggest issue it that these condescending bastards think we are simply too stupid to understand. Hey assholes, we're not all liberals!
-
7/17/11, 7:59 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
If Repubs give him a couple trillion to play with until after the elections in exchange for a promise of future cuts, the Reps are indeed the 'Stupid Party' .
Any deal like that must
1. have cuts now, not in the future
2. cuts are in a bill passed by both houses and signed by Uhbama.
3. we have a budget passed by both houses and signed by Uhbama specifying where any deficit spending goes. Uhbama MUST NOT be given 2.5 trillion to blow any way he wishes.
1. 2. and 3. above MUST occur BEFORE any debt increase, otherwise Reid and Uhbama will lie, weasel and procrastinate their way out of any cuts except to the military.
That's my gut reaction, but shrewder minds like Charles Krauthammer say the Republicans should play for time and call the President’s bluff about the necessity of a long-term agreement. Doing a 'big fix' would give him a pass to the 2012 elections, but a short-term debt-ceiling increase of a few hundred billion containing equal budget cuts would give the Repubs a few months to work on something larger. That would take the wind out of Uhbama's whining about the devastation that would be visited on the economy and Social Security recipients in the absence of an increase and force him to actually make cuts, which would for sure result in howls of pain and lost votes for Uhbama no matter whose ox will be gored. Uhbama’s threat to veto a short term hike in the limit is just what he called it - a bluff. Give him a short term increase, wait a while and do it again.
The heart of the matter is a conflict over strategy (win the 2012 elections) vs. tactics (how to win the election) - fight a delaying action or take a stand now.
A short-term debt ceiling increase makes sense for those who think the GOP can win points from now until November 2012. For those who feel the GOP will mess it up as usual, a short-term debt increase will be meaningless unless the President is strongly and publicly defied and forced to act against his wishes. For the activists, the act of standing fast has an importance in itself. The former makes an appeal to tactics and the latter makes an appeal to the power of symbolism.
The debate within the Conservatives, seen by the Left as a weakness, especially by an arrogant bastard like Uhbama, probably means the opposite. From the internal debate a new generation of Congressional leaders is emerging in this crisis and the experience can only make them stronger. The rebels in the American War for Independence became the Founding Fathers after the crisis of eight years of war. The debt ceiling crisis will be seen as a win for Conservatives in years to come, because the Progressives, after decades of spending to save the world and buy votes for the next election, have finally run out of new subscribers to their chain letter. As long as the Conservatives don’t completely muck it up, they will win. Therefore they should risk something and not be unduly worried about losses short of the fatal. But the big unknown is what is the fatal dose? A second Uhbama term would be fatal for sure, but how much medicine can we take without killing ourselves before then?
We're living in historic times - will a Constitutional America rise up again, or will we slide into a third world misery?
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick -
7/17/11, 10:52 AM
-
TheOldMan said...
-
The Balanced Budget Amendment must never be ratified! Think it through:
1. Communists pass budget with an extra one trillion dollars of spending
2. Communist President smiles and says "Hey the BBA says this must balance."
3. Communist Congress passes tax increases to cover the spending saying the BBA made them do it. -
7/18/11, 1:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)