Dude-in-Chief "lays an egg" on the Daily Show

[Bearinabox]

Bearinabox challenges me to provide an example and then ignores it when I give one

What sort of response were you expecting? I don't watch this forum 24-7 trying to figure out if Mikeg is expecting me to post something or not, sorry.

I can pretty much see where this conversation is going. I say "spending on stimulus was a tough choice given the state of the economy, whereas blowing the Clinton-era surplus on tax cuts for the rich and invading Iraq and Afghanistan was just mind-blowingly irresponsible," then you say "so what did the stimulus accomplish?" and I say "it helped, but wasn't big enough to fix the economy, largely because conservatives kept blocking parts of it" etc. ad nauseam. I have better things to do with my time, and I've read enough of your posts here over the years to know that your opinion of Obama hasn't changed much since he took office.

I'm fired up and ready to go too. Do I get a cookie?

[Mikeg]

What sort of response were you expecting? I don't watch this forum 24-7 trying to figure out if Mikeg is expecting me to post something or not, sorry.

Thanks for clearing that up. Should you ever ask me a question again, I'll know that you aren't serious and I can politely ignore you instead of taking the time to respond.

[Bearinabox]

Thanks for clearing that up. Should you ever ask me a question again, I'll know that you aren't serious and I can politely ignore you instead of taking the time to respond.

If it makes you feel better. Hey, you can even add me to your ignore list! That'll learn me not to let one of your posts go 36 hours without a response.

[Stosh]

A good start for conservative Republicans which will be rewarded in the 2012 election cycle only if the new Republican leadership responds to the mood of the 2010 electorate. Their first order of business should be to belatedly develop and pass the 2011 Federal Budget that the current Democrat House Leadership refused to do. Once that is out of the way, the House Republicans can show some fiscal responsibility with their 2012 Federal Budget and dare Obama to veto it.

I think that with the right leadership [[and I'm not yet sure the Republicans have it), they ought to be able to show how to cut Federal spending by focusing on things like:

a) freezing all uncommitted ARRA spending immediately and rolling back 2012 spending to 2008 levels
b) ending "earmarks" [[they barely register in the overall budget but by reforming the budgeting process to prohibit them, it will show voters that they can be trusted to have the discipline necessary to tackle the big budget issues and entitlement reforms)
c) ending "corporate welfare" programs and subsidies
d) ending outdated and/or ineffective federal and military hardware programs
e) eliminating waste, fraud and abuse [[see item b)
f) consolidating overlapping federal programs and privatizing others
g) rolling back federal regulations and spending on things that should be the responsibility of state and local governments

Here and here are some specific recommendations based on the above that, if enacted, would yield nearly $1 trillion in reduced Federal spending by 2015.

Well, I suppose that precludes any hope that you, yourself from coming up with an original idea... Parroting the Republican line are we? That's special as hell. Not only that, you are STILL speaking in generalities. Whatever, is correct. As you may see, I've snipped the more useless portions of your diatribe.

Now, let's examine what your links posted had to say. First, I have no problem with the first one. The second, is an exercise in stupidity. Unbelievable. I defy you to justify the gutting of the social programs in this FULL link below.

Like these chosen ones [[in millions)
$6,000 Eliminate the Community Development Block Grant program.

Direct aid to cities. In my town, that's 50K. what about yours?
$1,500 Open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to leasing.
[[The savings are leasing revenues, which are classified as negative spending in the federal budget.)
Kissing big oil's ass...
$7,334 Eliminate all Justice Department grants except those from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice, thereby empowering states to finance their own justice programs.
Grants to cops locally. How will the states fund these? 1.6 billion shortfall next year in Michigan.
$26,646 Eliminate the additional child refundable credit.
Yessir, balance the budget on the backs of the working poor.
$2,500 Cap increases in Department of Veterans Affairs health care spending.
Also balance on the backs of the Vets... nice.
$6,000 Repeal the Davis–Bacon Act.
Can't forget to screw the unions over, can we?
$2,250 Eliminate Federal Communications Commission funding for school Internet service
Yep, can't have those kids learning anything, can we?

Full text of these cuts is below.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...federal-budget

[jt1]

Mikeg - I asked a simple question. I'm curious why you would answer previous questions but my simple query only brings snarky comments.

My question was neither inflammatory or controversial.

[jt1]

Generalities like "go back to posting about genealogy", "It's all Bush's fault", "Reagan ran up the public debt, too" ? Whatever......

I do not feel that "everything will be hunky-dory" once more conservatives are elected to the House and Senate on Tuesday, for the following reasons:

A) while the next Congress is certain to have a Republican majority in the House and possibly even one in the Senate, there is no chance of a 60-seat Republican majority in the Senate, so Obama can use his "sinsister" veto pen throughout the remainder of his term
B) it's still not clear whether the Republican Congressional leadership shares the same philosophies and priorities as the newly-elected crop of conservative Republicans

Q: What do you call a net pick up of 60 Republican seats in the House and 8 in the Senate?
A: A good start!

A good start for conservative Republicans which will be rewarded in the 2012 election cycle only if the new Republican leadership responds to the mood of the 2010 electorate. Their first order of business should be to belatedly develop and pass the 2011 Federal Budget that the current Democrat House Leadership refused to do. Once that is out of the way, the House Republicans can show some fiscal responsibility with their 2012 Federal Budget and dare Obama to veto it.

I think that with the right leadership [[and I'm not yet sure the Republicans have it), they ought to be able to show how to cut Federal spending by focusing on things like:

a) freezing all uncommitted ARRA spending immediately and rolling back 2012 spending to 2008 levels
b) ending "earmarks" [[they barely register in the overall budget but by reforming the budgeting process to prohibit them, it will show voters that they can be trusted to have the discipline necessary to tackle the big budget issues and entitlement reforms)
c) ending "corporate welfare" programs and subsidies
d) ending outdated and/or ineffective federal and military hardware programs
e) eliminating waste, fraud and abuse [[see item b)
f) consolidating overlapping federal programs and privatizing others
g) rolling back federal regulations and spending on things that should be the responsibility of state and local governments

Here and here are some specific recommendations based on the above that, if enacted, would yield nearly $1 trillion in reduced Federal spending by 2015.

I'm curious why the Repubs didn't enact all of this policy while they had control? This is the issue I have with the Repub platform [[and I'm waiting to hear what will be different). They have rallied about what needs to change but they did not enact those policies when they could/should have. Sounds like nothing more than political posturing to me.