The Republican Thread

[BearSox]

I read this and it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside....

 

------------------------------------------------------

Is it the NBA or NFL?

 

36 have been accused of spousal abuse

 

7 have been arrested for fraud

 

19 have been accused of writing bad checks

 

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

 

3 have done time for assault

 

71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

 

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting

 

21 currently are defendants in lawsuits,

 

84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

 

Can you guess which organization this is? Give up yet?

 

Neither, it’s the 435 members of the United States Congress; the same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

[Balta1701]

20% of Congress has received a DUI in the last year? That seems simply implausible.

[BearSox]

I think that list was created around 2006... however, I don't think the numbers have gone done much.

[lostfan]

That was an e-mail wasn't it? I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are, and I doubt if they are. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised (especially concerning the House).

[HuskyCaucasian]

That was an e-mail wasn't it? I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are, and I doubt if they are. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised (especially concerning the House).

The report is a miss-mash of info and some of it is true, some is not, and others are hard to pin specifics down.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

[BearSox]

Also, I just wanted everyone to know that I wasn't implying this to one side or the other, but rather all of them. If there was a Filibuster catch all, I would have posted there, but since not, I decided to post it in here.

[mr_genius]

20% of Congress has received a DUI in the last year? That seems simply implausible.

 

agreed. toss a few more Kennedy's into congress, then maybe it could happen.

[mr_genius]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_...asury_borrowing

 

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Monday it will need to borrow $361 billion in the current April-June quarter, a record amount for that period.

 

It's the third straight quarter the government's borrowing needs have set records for those periods.

 

 

....

Edited April 27, 2009 by mr_genius

[BearSox]

Ah, that's music to my ears... wait, I read that... instead... Ah, naked pictures of hot girls to my eyes. Yeah, that works a lot better.

[southsider2k5]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_...asury_borrowing

 

 

 

 

....

 

No big surprise there. Its only going to get worse too.

[Cknolls]

I would like to know if the gov't. will track how many people lose their private health coverage when the Obama abomination passes. I'll venture a guess and say 50 million within 10 years. And that is probably optimistic.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Lockheed Owego, where they are building the avionics system for the Presidential helicopter and working on the CSAR-X program announced they will lay off 225 in mid-May. This is a direct result of the Gates recommendation to terminate those programs. It was also said that these were only the first wave of layoffs in the company before the fiscal year 2010, which begins in October.

[lostfan]

Lockheed Owego, where they are building the avionics system for the Presidential helicopter and working on the CSAR-X program announced they will lay off 225 in mid-May. This is a direct result of the Gates recommendation to terminate those programs. It was also said that these were only the first wave of layoffs in the company before the fiscal year 2010, which begins in October.

I don't follow - y'all complain about the budget, and justifiably so. But then when the administration (specifically Gates, probably the best qualified of anyone in either this or the previous administration) takes specific action with long-term goals in mind to reduce the budget - the fact that the Air Force already has F-22s notwithstanding - that's also bad. It doesn't add up, logically.

[southsider2k5]

I would like to know if the gov't. will track how many people lose their private health coverage when the Obama abomination passes. I'll venture a guess and say 50 million within 10 years. And that is probably optimistic.

 

They know that. It also gives them the opening to "give" people health insurance down the road.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I don't follow - y'all complain about the budget, and justifiably so. But then when the administration (specifically Gates, probably the best qualified of anyone in either this or the previous administration) takes specific action with long-term goals in mind to reduce the budget - the fact that the Air Force already has F-22s notwithstanding - that's also bad. It doesn't add up, logically.

 

Certain things in the budget should be there. The loss of these two programs will hurt several major defense contractors. Mostly, these programs should not have been cut. (Technically they arent but they're on the chopping block). And the thing is, the presidential helicopter program was fine until Obama opened his mouth with some ignorant comment after fielding a question from a reporter. I, for one, have not actually ever complained here about the propsed budget, and I also will always support strong defense spending. The F-22 cut is fine because they are upping another jet (I forget which one). They are strongly supporting the new JLTV. The CSAR-X could go either way with me. The Pres helicopter I dont feel should have been cut (especially since they are so far along with it already...there's money down the drain!) The main issue with this, is we have them preaching about job creation and all that and these program cuts are going to directly lead to job loss. And these are often high paying techincal jobs too that are good for local economies. Also, it just feels these cuts were reactionary due to an unjustified outrage by those in the media and reporters, from both sides.

[NorthSideSox72]

Certain things in the budget should be there. The loss of these two programs will hurt several major defense contractors. Mostly, these programs should not have been cut. (Technically they arent but they're on the chopping block). And the thing is, the presidential helicopter program was fine until Obama opened his mouth with some ignorant comment after fielding a question from a reporter. I, for one, have not actually ever complained here about the propsed budget, and I also will always support strong defense spending. The F-22 cut is fine because they are upping another jet (I forget which one). They are strongly supporting the new JLTV. The CSAR-X could go either way with me. The Pres helicopter I dont feel should have been cut (especially since they are so far along with it already...there's money down the drain!) The main issue with this, is we have them preaching about job creation and all that and these program cuts are going to directly lead to job loss. And these are often high paying techincal jobs too that are good for local economies. Also, it just feels these cuts were reactionary due to an unjustified outrage by those in the media and reporters, from both sides.

Take your choice - job cuts or wasteful spending. Because cutting ANY experimental or R&D program results in job cuts, it has to.

 

 

[lostfan]

Certain things in the budget should be there. The loss of these two programs will hurt several major defense contractors. Mostly, these programs should not have been cut. (Technically they arent but they're on the chopping block). And the thing is, the presidential helicopter program was fine until Obama opened his mouth with some ignorant comment after fielding a question from a reporter. I, for one, have not actually ever complained here about the propsed budget, and I also will always support strong defense spending. The F-22 cut is fine because they are upping another jet (I forget which one). They are strongly supporting the new JLTV. The CSAR-X could go either way with me. The Pres helicopter I dont feel should have been cut (especially since they are so far along with it already...there's money down the drain!) The main issue with this, is we have them preaching about job creation and all that and these program cuts are going to directly lead to job loss. And these are often high paying techincal jobs too that are good for local economies. Also, it just feels these cuts were reactionary due to an unjustified outrage by those in the media and reporters, from both sides.

You're talking about the F-35 I think. The question wasn't F-22 or no F-22, it was stop at the amount we have or make more.

 

Defense spending at its current pace is/was sustainable. It's such a massive part of the budget that it's ridiculous, and also just spending doesn't guarantee superiority (I won't go into too much detail here). I keep talking about this though. Everybody wants to cut the budget but nobody actually wants to start anywhere. The federal budget looks something like this:

This is why presidential candidates always talk about scrubbing the budget but it never actually happens. It's not as easy as it looks, even if you factor out the costs of all the bailouts. The deficit is a structural thing, it's not something Obama can just snap his fingers and will away.

[mr_genius]

Take your choice - job cuts or wasteful spending. Because cutting ANY experimental or R&D program results in job cuts, it has to.

 

you should oppose these cuts, as all spending is good spending. correct?

 

edit: for the record i support the cuts, but would like to see cuts across the board.

Edited April 28, 2009 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

You're talking about the F-35 I think. The question wasn't F-22 or no F-22, it was stop at the amount we have or make more.

 

Defense spending at its current pace is/was sustainable.

 

government spending at it's current pace is not sustainable.

[NorthSideSox72]

you should oppose these cuts, as all spending is good spending. correct?

 

edit: and for the record i support the cuts, but demand cuts across the board.

I'm all for the cuts, and they are doing it exactly the way cuts should be done - surgically, by people who understand the needs in those areas (Gates). Just going in and saying "cut everything 5%" is the plan of the lazy and people who don't understand how to run a solid business.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

government spending at it's current pace is not sustainable.

Amen.

 

[mr_genius]

I'm all for the cuts, and they are doing it exactly the way cuts should be done - surgically, by people who understand the needs in those areas (Gates). Just going in and saying "cut everything 5%" is the plan of the lazy and people who don't understand how to run a solid business.

 

running an annual 2 trillion dollar defict is done by people whom not only do not realize how to run a solid business, but lack common sense in general. this is a shot at the GOP as well, they f***ed up bad. a lot of this debt goes back to GW bank bailouts he rushed through.

Edited April 28, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

running an annual 2 trillion dollar defict is done by people whom not only do not realize how to run a solid business, but lack common sense in general. this is a shot at the GOP as well, they f***ed up bad. a lot of this debt goes back to GW bank bailouts he rushed through.

It was before that, all of the defense and war spending that they pretended wasn't a part of the budget along with some pretty pointless tax cuts (those are fine when needed, and when you have a decrease in spending to justify it). It's more than one thing.

[Cknolls]

They know that. It also gives them the opening to "give" people health insurance down the road.

 

 

Kind of like savings jobs. GMAFB!!!

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm not trying to GOP bash here, just found this interesting and worth discussion. Apparently many in the GOP are trying to subtly strip Steele of his power and work around his authority as a leader.

 

Washington Times-

A battle over control of the party's purse strings has erupted at the troubled Republican National Committee, with defenders of Chairman Michael S. Steele accusing dissident RNC members of trying to "embarrass and neuter" the party's new leader.

 

Randy Pullen, the RNC's elected treasurer, former RNC General Counsel David Norcross and three other former top RNC officers have presented Mr. Steele with a resolution, calling for a new set of checks and balances on the chairman's power to dole out money.

 

The powers include new controls on awarding contracts and spending money on outside legal and other services.

 

Mr. Steele could not be reached, and a spokesman for the RNC chairman declined to comment on the move.

 

The resolution prompted a top Steele supporter to issue a scathing attack against Mr. Pullen and his allies after they had asked Mr. Steele to support the "good governance" resolution at a special meeting of the full national committee set for next month. The party spent about $300 million in last year's elections.

 

"I urge you to reject this hostile attempt to embarrass and neuter the chairman of the RNC," Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus wrote in an e-mail to the 168-member national committee.

 

Mr. Pullen and his allies need signatures from RNC members from 16 states to force the resolution to the floor for a vote by the full party committee at the May 20 special meeting.

 

The funding fight comes on the heels of another open challenge to Mr. Steele's authority. Unhappy RNC conservatives secured the signatures to force the committee to convene next month's special meeting to vote on a resolution labeling Democrats as "socialists," despite the chairman's reservations about the political wisdom of the move.

 

Critics said the "socialist" resolution battle was a sign of Mr. Steele's rocky start as RNC chairman and his continuing struggle to assert control of the party's message since his election in January.