Why is the GOP the party of no?

[JRK]

Simple
Govt is too big. The dems put forth a budget that does nothing to cut spending and attaches tax increases and then expects the GOP to negotiate
What would a bi partisan bill look like? 100% tax reform. The maybe you could get the GOP to look at spending increases. BTW spending over 3 trillion and cutting the growth from 5% to whatever is below that is not a cut
increase year to year spending higher than inflation is an increase, plain and simple

 

[g5000]

Simple
Govt is too big. The dems put forth a budget that does nothing to cut spending and attaches tax increases and then expects the GOP to negotiate
What would a bi partisan bill look like? 100% tax reform. The maybe you could get the GOP to look at spending increases. BTW spending over 3 trillion and cutting the growth from 5% to whatever is below that is not a cut
increase year to year spending higher than inflation is an increase, plain and simple

Do you have a link from an objective source which says the Democratic budget does not have any spending cuts?

 

[g5000]

Her plan would raise $975 billion in new revenue in the next decade by closing tax breaks that benefit upper-income households and corporations. Democrats plan to match the new taxes with $975 billion in spending reductions. They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest

Democrats' Budget Mixes Tax Increases, Spending Cuts - WSJ.com

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Her plan would raise $975 billion in new revenue in the next decade by closing tax breaks that benefit upper-income households and corporations. Democrats plan to match the new taxes with $975 billion in spending reductions. They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest

Democrats' Budget Mixes Tax Increases, Spending Cuts - WSJ.com

Would that be reductions in current level in spending or reductions in the future growth of spending? See, that's the trick they like the to pull. They cut from projected spending growth then claim they cut spending, yet somehow the budget mysteriously still ends up being larger than the prior year.

 

[Caroljo]

Her plan would raise $975 billion in new revenue in the next decade by closing tax breaks that benefit upper-income households and corporations. Democrats plan to match the new taxes with $975 billion in spending reductions. They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest

Democrats' Budget Mixes Tax Increases, Spending Cuts - WSJ.com

It took Obama only 4 yrs to add 5T to the deficit. Now their plan is to reduce the deficit by 1.85T over the next 10 yrs. Hmmm....this should be interesting. As long as the Dems are in charge, won't ever happen! And it's not enough anyway!

 

[rightwinger]

Simple
Govt is too big. The dems put forth a budget that does nothing to cut spending and attaches tax increases and then expects the GOP to negotiate
What would a bi partisan bill look like? 100% tax reform. The maybe you could get the GOP to look at spending increases. BTW spending over 3 trillion and cutting the growth from 5% to whatever is below that is not a cut
increase year to year spending higher than inflation is an increase, plain and simple

What makes the government too big?

Where is the size of government for a nation of 315 million people specified?

 

[g5000]

Her plan would raise $975 billion in new revenue in the next decade by closing tax breaks that benefit upper-income households and corporations. Democrats plan to match the new taxes with $975 billion in spending reductions. They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest

Democrats' Budget Mixes Tax Increases, Spending Cuts - WSJ.com

Would that be reductions in current level in spending or reductions in the future growth of spending? See, that's the trick they like the to pull. They cut from projected spending growth then claim they cut spending, yet somehow the budget mysteriously still ends up being larger than the prior year.

Read the link. They are real cuts.

And your claim could be said about tax cuts. Someone can easily claim Republicans could reduce projected tax increases and then claim they cut taxes.

Rather than repeat bogus claims you have heard elsewhere, try looking into it yourself.

As for tax reform, I am all for it. I have argued long and hard for all tax expenditures to be banned. I would even support a constitutional amendment to that effect.

Tax expenditures need to be stopped. They are open corruption, and all parties are guilty of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I wish they were the party of no. The problem is they go along with the Dems way too much.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Simple
Govt is too big. The dems put forth a budget that does nothing to cut spending and attaches tax increases and then expects the GOP to negotiate
What would a bi partisan bill look like? 100% tax reform. The maybe you could get the GOP to look at spending increases. BTW spending over 3 trillion and cutting the growth from 5% to whatever is below that is not a cut
increase year to year spending higher than inflation is an increase, plain and simple

What makes the government too big?

Where is the size of government for a nation of 315 million people specified?

A interesting link

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/d...ables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

 

[rightwinger]

Simple
Govt is too big. The dems put forth a budget that does nothing to cut spending and attaches tax increases and then expects the GOP to negotiate
What would a bi partisan bill look like? 100% tax reform. The maybe you could get the GOP to look at spending increases. BTW spending over 3 trillion and cutting the growth from 5% to whatever is below that is not a cut
increase year to year spending higher than inflation is an increase, plain and simple

What makes the government too big?

Where is the size of government for a nation of 315 million people specified?

A interesting link

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Thanks

Looks like the size of government has DECREASED 20% in the last 50 years

 

[g5000]

I wish they were the party of no. The problem is they go along with the Dems way too much.

I think this stupid attidute sums everything that is wrong in politics today. Opposition for the sake of opposition is as retarded as it gets.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What makes the government too big?

Where is the size of government for a nation of 315 million people specified?

A interesting link

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Thanks

Looks like the size of government has DECREASED 20% in the last 50 years

I know, So what is everyone talking about? lol

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democrats' Budget Mixes Tax Increases, Spending Cuts - WSJ.com

Would that be reductions in current level in spending or reductions in the future growth of spending? See, that's the trick they like the to pull. They cut from projected spending growth then claim they cut spending, yet somehow the budget mysteriously still ends up being larger than the prior year.

Read the link. They are real cuts.

And your claim could be said about tax cuts. Someone can easily claim Republicans could reduce projected tax increases and then claim they cut taxes.

Rather than repeat bogus claims you have heard elsewhere, try looking into it yourself.

As for tax reform, I am all for it. I have argued long and hard for all tax expenditures to be banned. I would even support a constitutional amendment to that effect.

Tax expenditures need to be stopped. They are open corruption, and all parties are guilty of it.

These aren't bogus claims I've "heard elsewhere." They've actually done it multiple times, both Democrats and Republicans, under the guise of spending cuts. When was the last time the federal government actually spent less than the prior year? It hasn't happened in my lifetime.

 

[Borillar]

Why is the GOP the party of "No"?
Because they don't have any ideas of their own except tax cuts for the rich. It isn't because government is too big. Heck, they gave us a huge increase in government with the DHS and TSA. It isn't about spending because they love to spend money too. It isn't about deficits because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." What it is, is that a Democrat is President. They can't accept that and move forward with the will of the people and the good of the country. They have to say no to absolutely everything, even if those things were originally proposed by Republicans. If Obama is for it, they're against it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now is a time that we need to borrow and spend. Interest rates are so low that it is a no brainer. Borrow..........spend on infrastructure and education........bolster the economy while investing in the future.

And....why not eliminate the cap on payroll taxes and reduce the amount to 4%. Then we could expand Social Security....lower the retirement age and increase Medicare enrollment.

Yes dummies ...........we need to spend more.

 

[KevinWestern]

Why is the GOP the party of "No"?
Because they don't have any ideas of their own except tax cuts for the rich. It isn't because government is too big. Heck, they gave us a huge increase in government with the DHS and TSA. It isn't about spending because they love to spend money too. It isn't about deficits because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." What it is, is that a Democrat is President. They can't accept that and move forward with the will of the people and the good of the country. They have to say no to absolutely everything, even if those things were originally proposed by Republicans. If Obama is for it, they're against it.

I'm sure the Republicans do a lot of things to protect their rich donors, but I think it's just slightly naive to assume that the Democrats aren't doing the exact same thing.

Ask yourself, why would Obama (in his second term) sign a piece of legislation that protects Monsanto from any legal action resulting from health issues, ect caused by their products? Why would Obama appoint a Monsanto exec to a top spot in the FDA, as if there's "no conflict of interests" that would exist in that scenario. How many bankers has Obama put behind bars in the past 5 years despite the fraud that crashed our economy putting MILLIONS and MILLIONS out of work (including many family and friends I know)? The answer's pretty easy to remember: zero.

The Dems are funded by (many) of the same powerful, rich entities as the Republicans, and you'd be a fool to not acknowledge this.


.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The teepubs have said it right out loud - 'compromise means doing it their way'.

And, a little reminder -

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh God.... I though this loon was finally gone.

 

[KevinWestern]

The teepubs have said it right out loud - 'compromise means doing it their way'.

And, a little reminder -

More republican/democrat distractions.

Luddy, why do YOU think Obama signed the so called "Monsanto Protection Act" - written in part by Monsanto Reps - which "bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds" despite some well known studies that have linked GMOS to cancer?

He's in his second term, right? I thought he was a good honest dude?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Govt is too big.

As already correctly noted, this is an inane and meaningless phrase.