Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   House GOP unveils its budget of fiscally responsible unicorns and market-driven rainbows   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

6169 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Mar 2009 at 4:27 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



932 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Newest

 
2009-03-26 7:03:17 PM  
bah, lasts, not asks. I was trying to hurry up the thread. Too many pictures. :)
 
2009-03-26 7:03:20 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think the Republicans want to have a real conversation about the budget. What they should do is have a closed door sit down meeting with EVERY Republican member of congress and they all agree to completely drop all pork barrel spending. Then dare the Democrats to do the same.


Do you honestly think there are more than two or maybe three people in the Republican party that really-and-truly oppose pork barrel spending?
 
2009-03-26 7:03:33 PM  
Oh, for FARKS sake. The Republican party is the most re-god-damn-diculous pile of fail and stupid I've ever seen.

Anyone who thought this was anything less than idiocy bordering on psychosis should be spat upon by random passerby.
 
2009-03-26 7:04:07 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think the Republicans want to have a real conversation about the budget. What they should do is have a closed door sit down meeting with EVERY Republican member of congress and they all agree to completely drop all pork barrel spending. Then dare the Democrats to do the same.

*sigh*

But they won't do it. They'll keep spending money and running their protection rackets.


That would be awesome, and I'd care a lot more about it if it were more than ~2% of the budget. But it would be a good gesture to start with at least.

My contention with the Republican platform is the 'tax cuts solve everything' myth. This started roughly in the sixties when Republicans were actually conservative. They decided that, politically, they were too weak to enforce spending limits so they decided to use tax cuts as a wedge issue to get into office. They fully realized that it would cause large deficits, they just didn't care because they figured once they were in office they could reduce spending and everything would be great. This problem started with Republicans rationalizing their political agenda as a feasible economic policy. That's what happened to Reagan and G.H.W.B. During Clinton's presidency some level of sanity was restored. Then Bush 2 took over and it's gone completely to shiat.

I'd still like to have a discussion with someone regarding progressive taxation versus flat/consumption tax and how they effect wealth condensation.
 
2009-03-26 7:04:12 PM  

Mosey: Antonio_Talibanderas: Tax cuts for the wealthy, drilling in ANWR, spending cuts for everything except the military, more restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits, continued bank bailouts under the guise of homebuyer/homeowner incentives. (In short, they will subsidize refis and new home purchases in order to get money to the banks - that way they don't have to call them bailouts.)

And that's it.

I hate to tell you, but the Democrats aren't much except "the opposite of that." Nothing in Obama's budget is a "new idea" it is the same ideas they haven't had a turn to try and pass (and for that matter the stimulus bill). They won, they get to boost their pet projects. That is how it works.

It isn't like there is anything revolutionary going on here. Just the other guys are saying "no, do the opposite" than we had the last few years.

?


That's the dumbest post of the day. Seriously. I mean, you may HATE what is in the budget and think its the end of the world, but to deny its revolutionary or new is absurd.
 
2009-03-26 7:05:47 PM  

Mosey:

playkon.comView Full Size


ftfy
 
2009-03-26 7:06:20 PM  
Why is everyone complaining about the lack of detail? It's not like Congress actually reads legislation before voting on it. Or is that only Democrat-sponsored bills?
 
2009-03-26 7:06:48 PM  

Weaver95: The Republicans themselves didn't put forward anything at all. just a slick advertising package with little detail and a lot of flashy ads.


Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar.
 
2009-03-26 7:06:52 PM  

DamnYankees: Democrats have had full control of government for 2 years since 1980. They haven't really had a chance to implement their ideas. So the complaint that these aren't new is rather silly.


And when they did have control of Congress and the Presidency in 1992-1994, what did they push... almost exactly the same ideas, maybe slightly different technologies, but really the same ideas. As it turns out, that didn't really work out well for them. (that was more the corruption of controlling Congress for 40 years more than the ideas themselves).

But since you bring it up, Republicans have only had control of Congress and the Presidency what, 6 years since 1980 (2000-2006)? Does that means you can't say they don't have "new" ideas either? Or at least can't say "haven't had a new idea since 1980?

/thinks it is a good thing either number is nice and low
// 30 years, 8 controlled by one party or the other)
 
2009-03-26 7:07:33 PM  

Lumi: Sad thing is, they already do. "We already have universal health care: Emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away!" is their mantra.


that's true but emergency rooms are poor way to treat people and very expensive. And more and more are closing up and it's making health care for everyone else more and more expensive.
 
2009-03-26 7:08:23 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: The Republicans themselves didn't put forward anything at all. just a slick advertising package with little detail and a lot of flashy ads.

Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar.


So...you're saying that the Obama administration is more competent than the entire GOP? That's quite a complement.
 
2009-03-26 7:08:33 PM  
kasmel: That would be awesome, and I'd care a lot more about it if it were more than ~2% of the budget. But it would be a good gesture to start with at least.

"THIS BUDGET CONTAINS MOAR THAN 9,000 EARMARKS!!!!!"

That, my friend, is the argument the average Fox News listener hears. And, as far as they're concerned, all those 9,000 earmarks involve saving endangered crickets and building bridges for crack whores. Never mind that an "earmark" might be something like "...and $420,000,000 of the budget of the Department of Defense shall be used to buy body armor for troops".

We can't even remotely begin to talk about budget reform until the Average Joe understands that we're not spending all this money on totally useless pork projects. And the Average Joe truly and honestly believes that 85 percent of the current budget is going to implement Marxist Socialism In America, because Glenn Beck told them so.
 
2009-03-26 7:08:40 PM  

Mosey: And when they did have control of Congress and the Presidency in 1992-1994, what did they push... almost exactly the same ideas, maybe slightly different technologies, but really the same ideas. As it turns out, that didn't really work out well for them.


Yeah that economic prosperity and shrinking deficits were so horrible!
 
2009-03-26 7:10:25 PM  

bboy: Do you honestly think there are more than two or maybe three people in the Republican party that really-and-truly oppose pork barrel spending?


Well, to be fair it is probably more like 10-20, but hardly all of them.
 
2009-03-26 7:11:34 PM  

bboy: kasmel: That would be awesome, and I'd care a lot more about it if it were more than ~2% of the budget. But it would be a good gesture to start with at least.

"THIS BUDGET CONTAINS MOAR THAN 9,000 EARMARKS!!!!!"

That, my friend, is the argument the average Fox News listener hears. And, as far as they're concerned, all those 9,000 earmarks involve saving endangered crickets and building bridges for crack whores. Never mind that an "earmark" might be something like "...and $420,000,000 of the budget of the Department of Defense shall be used to buy body armor for troops".

We can't even remotely begin to talk about budget reform until the Average Joe understands that we're not spending all this money on totally useless pork projects. And the Average Joe truly and honestly believes that 85 percent of the current budget is going to implement Marxist Socialism In America, because Glenn Beck told them so.


We can. We just don't elect 'Average Joe'.
 
2009-03-26 7:13:07 PM  

kasmel: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: The Republicans themselves didn't put forward anything at all. just a slick advertising package with little detail and a lot of flashy ads.

Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar.

So...you're saying that the Obama administration is more competent than the entire GOP? That's quite a complement.


Analyzed like a true liberal. I appreciate you making a point for me though. Cheers!
 
2009-03-26 7:14:19 PM  

priestrape: this should keep the neocon douchebags from pulling that "unicorns and rainbows" crap out of their asses again. Right?



Yes, that will do very nicely. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It needs paragraph and page number, date and some more info that I can't think of right now because this thread is so hilarious. It needs more information.
 
2009-03-26 7:14:56 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: The Republicans themselves didn't put forward anything at all. just a slick advertising package with little detail and a lot of flashy ads.

Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar.


Get those Dems, they are the problem. Ignore everything the Republicans do and focus your hate on the libs. Don't trust and constantly criticize the dems while blindly supporting the GOP. Keep it up, it's smart.
 
2009-03-26 7:15:21 PM  
kasmel: We can. We just don't elect 'Average Joe'.

Yeah, but 'Average Joe' selects our representatives and senators, and they don't want to piss off their constituents by voting for something like "$318,000 of the Education budget shall be provided to evaluate our current educational system"... 'cause that's an EARMARK. It specifies where a certain amount of a departments allocated money must go. And Earmarks Are Pork. I know this for sure because I heard it on Sean Hannity the other night.
 
2009-03-26 7:16:22 PM  

bboy: kasmel: That would be awesome, and I'd care a lot more about it if it were more than ~2% of the budget. But it would be a good gesture to start with at least.

"THIS BUDGET CONTAINS MOAR THAN 9,000 EARMARKS!!!!!"

That, my friend, is the argument the average Fox News listener hears. And, as far as they're concerned, all those 9,000 earmarks involve saving endangered crickets and building bridges for crack whores. Never mind that an "earmark" might be something like "...and $420,000,000 of the budget of the Department of Defense shall be used to buy body armor for troops".

We can't even remotely begin to talk about budget reform until the Average Joe understands that we're not spending all this money on totally useless pork projects. And the Average Joe truly and honestly believes that 85 percent of the current budget is going to implement Marxist Socialism In America, because Glenn Beck told them so.


We'll never get that faction. Never. They are hopelessly lost to the propaganda organ that appeals to their ignorance, fear, and prejudice 24/7.

The key is to build enough of a coalition to outnumber them. At this time, we have that coalition and then some.

Their weakness, of course, is the same ignorance, fear, and prejudice that prevents them from understanding the difference between good and disastrously bad policy. Their hate and incompetence is what has driven the majority of Americans to vote Democrat for the last two election cycles.

As long as the Democrats keep a finger on the pulse of reality, they should be able to retain a majority. The Republicans aren't making any friends right now with their daily displays of stupid.
 
2009-03-26 7:17:02 PM  

Corvus:
Yeah that economic prosperity and shrinking deficits were so horrible!


In 1992 until 1994? What nation were you living in? We didn't get 'prosperity' until neither party controlled the entire thing again.
 
2009-03-26 7:17:03 PM  
I think it's very disingenuous of the GOP to release this document as a PDF, because you can't search a PDF.
 
2009-03-26 7:17:09 PM  
GOD HATES FLAMEWARS IN OTHERWISE EPIC THREADS.

settle down, fellas.
 
2009-03-26 7:17:17 PM  
bboy

How you doing, man! Things going OK for you?
 
2009-03-26 7:18:50 PM  

krelborne: That doesn't change what the facts are surrounding this document and the future document.


The Once and Future Document. Camelot! Camelot!
 
2009-03-26 7:20:25 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: kasmel: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: The Republicans themselves didn't put forward anything at all. just a slick advertising package with little detail and a lot of flashy ads.

Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar.

So...you're saying that the Obama administration is more competent than the entire GOP? That's quite a complement.

Analyzed like a true liberal. I appreciate you making a point for me though. Cheers!


Agreed! Your insightful contribution to the dialogue will not be forgotten. We appreciate the detailed critique of policy and fiscal planning that you and your Republican leaders have offered. In the mean time, the adults are talking, kindly offer a rebuttal that amounts to something more than 'no U!' and we will objectively analyze it's validity and worth. Until such point, kindly DIAFAEABOD.
 
2009-03-26 7:20:46 PM  

T. Dawg: Corvus: Also when people say it is "18 pages" that is VERY generous. It has a cover sheet and many pages are just a title and a short paragraph and all the rest of the pages are half graphics. Then out of that most of it is just complain about Democrats and Obama.

I have a word doc open where I pasted the text and have been cutting out anything that is directly negative toward the Democrats.

It's leaving a lot of very short phrases about what the Republicans actually want to do. And those phrases repeat a lot.

If I hadn't lost interest and quit already, I'd say it's probably more like three 12-point text pages of real content once you nix the biatching and repetition.


Editor: [laughs]
Homer: Well, what do you think?
Editor: This is a joke, right? I mean this is the stupidest thing
I've ever read!
Homer: What's wrong with it?
Editor: You keep using words like "Pasghetti" and "Momatoes" You
make numerous threatening references to the UN and at the
end you repeat the words "Screw Flanders" over and over
again.
Homer: Oh, it's so hard to get to 500 words.
 
2009-03-26 7:21:21 PM  

Mosey: In 1992 until 1994? What nation were you living in? We didn't get 'prosperity' until neither party controlled


The Omnibus bill in 93 directly led to the prosperity of the 90's. Remember? It was the one not a single Republican voted for. McCain said it was socialism, the others screamed it would break us. Remember?
 
2009-03-26 7:23:31 PM  

robmilmel: bboy

How you doing, man! Things going OK for you?


Howdy, chef! Yeah, pretty good. Staying sober, cooking lots, and trying to be productive. Which is why you don't see me around here much anymore. ;)
 
2009-03-26 7:23:47 PM  
Mosey

Remember?
Link (new window)

Look at the vote totals.
 
2009-03-26 7:24:01 PM  
You guys all rock... That's all I have to say about this.
 
2009-03-26 7:24:44 PM  
Check out this gem from the GOP budget blueprint talking point memo:

"We want to save consumers money, create jobs and grow the economy, and decrease our reliance on regimes that are not our friends, and the Democrats are telling us no."

lulz
 
2009-03-26 7:25:07 PM  

bboy: kasmel: We can. We just don't elect 'Average Joe'.

Yeah, but 'Average Joe' selects our representatives and senators, and they don't want to piss off their constituents by voting for something like "$318,000 of the Education budget shall be provided to evaluate our current educational system"... 'cause that's an EARMARK. It specifies where a certain amount of a departments allocated money must go. And Earmarks Are Pork. I know this for sure because I heard it on Sean Hannity the other night.


The irony is that it's almost the exact opposite of your description. The vast majority of 'representatives' keep their jobs by being able to tout how much money they bring back to their constituents.

The two things I want to see happen that I think will have an actual effect on budgets.

1. Lobbying is outlawed. Period. No lobbying, ever. No private meetings between representatives of large corporations and elected officials or their agents. No gifts or junkets.

2. Term limits.
 
2009-03-26 7:25:29 PM  

bboy: robmilmel: bboy

How you doing, man! Things going OK for you?

Howdy, chef! Yeah, pretty good. Staying sober, cooking lots, and trying to be productive. Which is why you don't see me around here much anymore. ;)


We miss ya, but glad to hear things are going well! EIP if you ever need an ear or shoulder, man.
 
2009-03-26 7:25:30 PM  

nevirus: Check out this gem from the GOP budget blueprint talking point memo:

"We want to save consumers money, create jobs and grow the economy, and decrease our reliance on regimes that are not our friends, and the Democrats are telling us no."

lulz


That isn't really there is it?
 
2009-03-26 7:25:53 PM  

nevirus: Check out this gem from the GOP budget blueprint talking point memo:

"We want to save consumers money, create jobs and grow the economy, and decrease our reliance on regimes that are not our friends, and the Democrats are telling us no."

lulz


[image from mindhacks.com too old to be available]
 
2009-03-26 7:26:28 PM  

Mosey: In 1992 until 1994? What nation were you living in? We didn't get 'prosperity' until neither party controlled the entire thing again.


Also they didn't completely rewrite the budget when the Republicans came it. It was pretty similar to what the Democrats had.
Here is net worth increases year of year:
1992 +4.57
1993 +6.05
1994 +3.23
1995 +10.92 (this would be the 94' budget)
 
2009-03-26 7:26:53 PM  

kasmel: 3_Butt_Cheeks: kasmel: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: The Republicans themselves didn't put forward anything at all. just a slick advertising package with little detail and a lot of flashy ads.

Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar.

So...you're saying that the Obama administration is more competent than the entire GOP? That's quite a complement.

Analyzed like a true liberal. I appreciate you making a point for me though. Cheers!

Agreed! Your insightful contribution to the dialogue will not be forgotten. We appreciate the detailed critique of policy and fiscal planning that you and your Republican leaders have offered. In the mean time, the adults are talking, kindly offer a rebuttal that amounts to something more than 'no U!' and we will objectively analyze it's validity and worth. Until such point, kindly DIAFAEABOD.



home.comcast.netView Full Size



Rebuttal? The current ecominc plan is it's own rebuttal, combed through and dissected for weeks. Please consult previous threads, or perhaps news sources.

TPM? Please.

Which outline are you referring to in particular, if any?
 
2009-03-26 7:27:06 PM  

PascalsGhost: nevirus: Check out this gem from the GOP budget blueprint talking point memo:

"We want to save consumers money, create jobs and grow the economy, and decrease our reliance on regimes that are not our friends, and the Democrats are telling us no."

lulz

That isn't really there is it?


Yes, sadly it is.
 
2009-03-26 7:28:02 PM  

PascalsGhost: That isn't really there is it?


Yup. Page 13. They end a section on that note.
 
2009-03-26 7:28:05 PM  
Hai guyz...i got the intro to the GOP alternative budget plan, but I only got the opening comments and none of the detailed impact studies and actual costs...does anyone have a link to the full text?

What's that you say? 18 pages you say? Credibility shredded you say?
 
2009-03-26 7:29:53 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I appreciate you making a point for me though.


Somebody has to do it. You obviously can't.
 
2009-03-26 7:30:29 PM  
Methinks people are confusing budgetary goals and objectives with a specfic bill proposal.
 
2009-03-26 7:30:35 PM  
img99.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2009-03-26 7:31:00 PM  

PascalsGhost: Mosey: In 1992 until 1994? What nation were you living in? We didn't get 'prosperity' until neither party controlled

The Omnibus bill in 93 directly led to the prosperity of the 90's. Remember? It was the one not a single Republican voted for. McCain said it was socialism, the others screamed it would break us. Remember?


It's deja vu all over again. We even had the CBO predicting disastrous levels of debt over that one too. The parallels are uncanny.
 
2009-03-26 7:31:43 PM  

kasmel: bboy: kasmel: We can. We just don't elect 'Average Joe'.

Yeah, but 'Average Joe' selects our representatives and senators, and they don't want to piss off their constituents by voting for something like "$318,000 of the Education budget shall be provided to evaluate our current educational system"... 'cause that's an EARMARK. It specifies where a certain amount of a departments allocated money must go. And Earmarks Are Pork. I know this for sure because I heard it on Sean Hannity the other night.

The irony is that it's almost the exact opposite of your description. The vast majority of 'representatives' keep their jobs by being able to tout how much money they bring back to their constituents.

The two things I want to see happen that I think will have an actual effect on budgets.

1. Lobbying is outlawed. Period. No lobbying, ever. No private meetings between representatives of large corporations and elected officials or their agents. No gifts or junkets.

2. Term limits.


Banning lobbying raises serious First Amendment issues. I agree in principle with banning or seriously capping lobbyist contributions to political campaigns, gifts, and junkets. But banning meetings amounts to banning speech, and I'd have to part ways with you.

Term limits are anti-democratic. They don't do anything to curb corruption anyway. Was Bush any less beholden to corporate interests in his second term because of Presidential term limits? How about Clinton? Reagan?

Republicans want them because incumbency is one of the few advantages Democrats ever have over Republicans, since Republicans generally have more money, friendlier media, etc., than Democrats. Term limits are the Republican answer to campaign finance laws.

Term limits suck.
 
2009-03-26 7:32:15 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Methinks people are confusing budgetary goals and objectives with a specfic bill proposal.


And by people, you mean Boehner and the rest of the GOP, right? Since it's obvious to most everyone else that their "budget" or "blueprint" or whatever they are backpedaling to call it now it nothing but a list of talking points with no substance whatsoever.
 
2009-03-26 7:32:32 PM  

RainDawg: 3_Butt_Cheeks: I appreciate you making a point for me though.

Somebody has to do it. You obviously can't.


Another one...brilliant!
 
2009-03-26 7:32:41 PM  
This is at the same level as any undergrad presentation by business students. Since wikipedia and the internet are replacing books, this is what passes for information and intelligence.

Seriously, in any university in North America, this budget would be given a pass. A 60, but the business students would be satisfied. and that is the only demographic that the budget needs to satisfy.
 
2009-03-26 7:34:04 PM  
bbc.co.ukView Full Size


We want to save consumers money, create jobs and grow the economy, and decrease our reliance on regimes that are not our friends, and the Democrats are telling us no.


/I think they needed a better graphic.
 
Displayed 50 of 932 comments


Oldest | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.