Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, so the President and Senate Democrats should get on board.
My proposal as a fiscal conservative is to cut budgets where feasible and not grandstand about how you are going to do the legislative equivalent of not buying a candy bar on the way out of a grocery story.
Why would they? Seriously? It is not like they magically changed and became teabaggers overnight. Republicans and Democrats need to compromise with each other not order the other side capitulate.
This is the same argument that is used to justify hundreds of billions in non essential spending.
It is a simple truth that no serious dent can be made in the deficit targeting such discretionary spending. Other than the scoring of political points, it is whistling past the graveyard.
Only a serious reduction in the "big three" (defense, Medicare & Social Security) has any hope to accomplish anything of note.
Why would they? Seriously? It is not like they magically changed and became teabaggers overnight. Republicans and Democrats need to compromise with each other not order the other side capitulate.
And what exactly did you believe when the Democratic Congress and President Obama were steamrollering initiatives during the first two years of this Administration? If I remember correctly "compromise" was a dirty word on the leftish side of the aisle, which was where the "elections have consequences" quote came from.
I have always found it funny in my life as an elected official that the ones that howl the loudest about people not compromising are the ones that absolutely refuse to do so when the situation is reversed. They also complain when, during the campaign, their opponents highlight their legislative records, which many times are the total opposite of what they're saying while campaigning.
It is a simple truth that no serious dent can be made in the deficit targeting such discretionary spending.
So you're suggesting instead of cutting $400 million from CPB we cut $400 million from something like LIHEAP (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/liheap/ - broken link)?
While we need to cut the larger programs we also need to get rid of things that are non essential and divert those funds to more important things. Certainly you could agree this money would be more wisely spent on the LIHEAP program than CPB.
And what exactly did you believe when the Democratic Congress and President Obama were steamrollering initiatives during the first two years of this Administration? If I remember correctly "compromise" was a dirty word on the leftish side of the aisle, which was where the "elections have consequences" quote came from.
I have always found it funny in my life as an elected official that the ones that howl the loudest about people not compromising are the ones that absolutely refuse to do so when the situation is reversed. They also complain when, during the campaign, their opponents highlight their legislative records, which many times are the total opposite of what they're saying while campaigning.
And what happened to that Democratic Congress? When I was in student government, my experience was that if things were to get done compromise was essential you would have nothing but gridlock without it. There is no way to have a workable budget when income growth is below expectations unless everyone is willing to make sacrifices. If you play screw the minority you will not accomplish as much and you will lose eventually at which point your opponents will be out for blood, when they get power.
To be fair $400m is not going to make a dent in the interest of the multi trillion dollar debt, and this is more of a right wing talking point either way. If the Republicans were serious about free market solutions they would eliminate, farm and ethanol subsidies, saving tens of billions. There is no need for them anymore as food prices are skyrocketing.
Isn't this exactly the PROBLEM? That half a BILLION dollars is peanuts according to the government.
Well, it's a start and the funding is completely unjustified considering the economy and the FACT that government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing....ANY business.
I'm very liberal and I support cutting funding for PBS. There's actually quite of bit of things I agree with the tea party on when it comes to cutting spending.
Which party created the Farm subsidies? Was it not FDR?
$400M hear and $400 there will add up. We cannot play that game that it isn't going to make a difference. If we have that attitude, nothing will get cut.
Isn't this exactly the PROBLEM? That half a BILLION dollars is peanuts according to the government.
Well, it's a start and the funding is completely unjustified considering the economy and the FACT that government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing....ANY business.
I don't disagree but they really need to get down to business with the big entitlement programs, medicare, social security and defense. Those are going to be the areas where cuts achieve meaningful deficit reduction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
