Posted by antonsirius on 11/2/2010 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/2/2010 3:15:00 PM (view original):
read this today - fortune's 'repubs new money men'

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/01/news/economy/ryan_issa_republicans.fortune/index.htm


basically - the masses of republican newbies coming in combined with the tea-party hype can help the old guard accomplish its fiscal goals. Interesting take I never considered.

I'm going to keep reading past "...blocking Obama's agenda" based on your recommendation, but that line alone tells me the writer is missing the point.

One major way to rebalance the budget is to stop spending... obama's agenda includes more spending. At this point just raising taxes won't cover the excessive expenses america is racking up from Bush and Obama.

I'm not supporting the article - just saying it is a viable possibility I previously haven't considered.

It was nice of Dick Armey to admit that he basically created the Tea Party movement though, and designed it to be an echo chamber.

Posted by moy23 on 11/2/2010 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 11/2/2010 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/2/2010 3:15:00 PM (view original):
read this today - fortune's 'repubs new money men'

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/01/news/economy/ryan_issa_republicans.fortune/index.htm


basically - the masses of republican newbies coming in combined with the tea-party hype can help the old guard accomplish its fiscal goals. Interesting take I never considered.

I'm going to keep reading past "...blocking Obama's agenda" based on your recommendation, but that line alone tells me the writer is missing the point.

One major way to rebalance the budget is to stop spending... obama's agenda includes more spending. At this point just raising taxes won't cover the excessive expenses america is racking up from Bush and Obama.

I'm not supporting the article - just saying it is a viable possibility I previously haven't considered.

And to me that approach is still just partisan crap, not a well-considered plan. New spending isn't inherently evil, any more than old spending is inherently untouchable.

We have to draw the line. No new spending. No new taxes. We must cut wherever it is possible.

This election is a clear mandate.

I agree its not a well considered plan jo 'just say NO' but it does in effect stop additional spending which every bill passed inevitably includes. Government spending is near entirely mishandled. Before spending any more we need to get a grip on the **** we already spend... $400 bil welfare, $700 bil Health Care, $700 Bil Gov't Pensions, $700 Bil Defense...

What our leader needs to do is re-assess the existing spending before we keep throwing more cash at bad programs. Personally thats why I like Mitt - He has his flaws FOOOOR SURE.... but running a fiscally succesful business and government is not one of them. I would love an executive-type (like those big business CEOs - the good ones we discussed earlier ;) ) to take a stab at gutting and restructuring existing programs rather than politicians that have no inkling as to running anything other than a campaign to get re-elected.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/2/2010 4:15:00 PM (view original):
We have to draw the line. No new spending. No new taxes. We must cut wherever it is possible.

This election is a clear mandate.

I despise saying this because the selfish part of me says its my money....

but as a fiscal conservative I would be fine with (preferably short term) higher taxes to bring the deficit back in control... (rather than not be able to pay our military, or have riots in the streets like Greece and France)... but its two-fold.... I'd only be happy if I see my tax money being spent efficiently. Right now it isn't. It ****** me off to hear taxes will be increased to support an increase in gov't spending. thats bullshit! balancing a budget is done by reduced spending and increased income... not reducing income and spending or increasing income and spending.

swamp - I don't expect you to grasp this concept.

and by the way swamp. '94 was a clear mandate as well right? yet clinton got re-elected in '96. A lot can happen in 2 years so don't be another John McCain and go telling everyone the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Posted by moy23 on 11/2/2010 4:17:00 PM (view original):
I agree its not a well considered plan jo 'just say NO' but it does in effect stop additional spending which every bill passed inevitably includes. Government spending is near entirely mishandled. Before spending any more we need to get a grip on the **** we already spend... $400 bil welfare, $700 bil Health Care, $700 Bil Gov't Pensions, $700 Bil Defense...

What our leader needs to do is re-assess the existing spending before we keep throwing more cash at bad programs. Personally thats why I like Mitt - He has his flaws FOOOOR SURE.... but running a fiscally succesful business and government is not one of them. I would love an executive-type (like those big business CEOs - the good ones we discussed earlier ;) ) to take a stab at gutting and restructuring existing programs rather than politicians that have no inkling as to running anything other than a campaign to get re-elected.

My problem with Romney is that he hasn't held the same policy position on anything for more than about 10 minutes. The idea that once he took the White House he'd suddenly become Mr. Steadfast and Principled... I don't see it.

Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph. Spending and revenue are almost entirely divorced in the way government is currently run. What we should be doing is examining every outgoing dollar to determine which are necessary and which aren't, and then set tax rates and such to hit a projected revenue that will cover it.

Instead, the tax rates are a political football and nobody wants to take anything away from voters.

God help me, but I agree with Moy.  Higher taxes/reduced spending.  That's the mid-range solution at least...not that you'll hear many people (my boy P. Ryan excepted) saying anything like that.

Posted by rlahann on 11/2/2010 4:35:00 PM (view original):
God help me, but I agree with Moy.  Higher taxes/reduced spending.  That's the mid-range solution at least...not that you'll hear many people (my boy P. Ryan excepted) saying anything like that.

Which goes back to moy's article - Ryan heading up the House Budget Committee could end up being a very good thing.

Best thing I could think of...I don't think I've ever voted GOP?  But I'd vote for him over almost any Democratic candidate.

The article is not just about Ryan heading up the committee.... but the perfect storm... the tea-party momentum bringing about a public endorsement to stop spending clashing simultaneously with the house majority being republican so no more bullshit bills get passed should give the guy leverage to get things done.... in theory.

Posted by moy23 on 11/2/2010 4:28:00 PM (view original):
and by the way swamp. '94 was a clear mandate as well right? yet clinton got re-elected in '96. A lot can happen in 2 years so don't be another John McCain and go telling everyone the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Presidents are elected for many reasons. We want a strong person that we can identify with. We elect congress to legislate.

Clinton was always popular in the right ways. He was and still is a magnetic personality. You cant compare him to Obama. I cant really comapre anything to Obama. I cant find an example of a person coming in with such energy and in 2 years losing all your political capital.

I am not saying that the Democrats are dead. Didnt say it in 1994 or 2004. Just as stupid as people saying the Pubs were dead in 2008.

The clear mandate is people want government to get their act together fiscally.

Posted by moy23 on 11/2/2010 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 11/2/2010 4:15:00 PM (view original):
We have to draw the line. No new spending. No new taxes. We must cut wherever it is possible.

This election is a clear mandate.

I despise saying this because the selfish part of me says its my money....

but as a fiscal conservative I would be fine with (preferably short term) higher taxes to bring the deficit back in control... (rather than not be able to pay our military, or have riots in the streets like Greece and France)... but its two-fold.... I'd only be happy if I see my tax money being spent efficiently. Right now it isn't. It ****** me off to hear taxes will be increased to support an increase in gov't spending. thats bullshit! balancing a budget is done by reduced spending and increased income... not reducing income and spending or increasing income and spending.

swamp - I don't expect you to grasp this concept.

This is a very reasoned and calm post.

I cant do that.

We have increased taxes and spending for 50 years. Always. No debate. Always up and up.

The 15% one time rich tax that Stockman mentioned on 60 minutes last night is another seems logical thing. Why not soak the rich. Of course we would never ask everyone for 15%. Why?

As far as I am concerned we need to show we can cut spending first. How about a 1 time 15% cut of the federal budget. If the government can do that we can talk about tax increases!

All hail Aqua Buddha! His disciple is now the new Senator from Kentucky.