Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:19 AM ET, 02/11/2011

Eric Cantor: GOP's budget cuts will be 'historic'

By Felicia Sonmez

Updated: 3:30 p.m.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised Thursday night that the spending cuts House Republicans are set to lay out in detail Friday will be the most sweeping since World War II.

"Remember, this is historic," Cantor told reporters after leaving a closed-door Republican conference meeting at which lawmakers were hashing out their differences on the cuts. "The level of cuts here have not taken place in Congress since World War II. That's how big these cuts are. We have now produced a working document, a bill that will be brought to the floor, that will make history again."

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) credited the new freshman class with pushing the GOP conference to make deeper cuts.

"Within our conference, we're going to take some tough steps, but I think the American people expect it," McCarthy said. "I give a lot of credit to the 87 new freshmen. This is a tough move forward, but it's a move that America needs to do. At our lunch yesterday with the White House and the president, we talked about the need to make cuts and create jobs, that they go hand-in-hand."

While Cantor and McCarthy spoke at a Capitol news conference, across town, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also hailed the cuts to attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

"Next week we are going to cut more than $100 billion," Boehner said. "And we're not going to stop there. Once we cut the discretionary accounts, then we'll get into the mandatory spending. And then you'll see more cuts."

The $100 billion in cuts announced Thursday was up from the projected $74 billion that House Republican leaders had earlier anticipated making. Under pressure from conservative members, including much of the GOP's freshman class, leaders ditched the lower estimate and embraced the higher figure, which they had originally laid out last year in their Pledge to America.

Even if the proposal were to pass the House, it is unlikely that the Democratic-controlled Senate would pass it, raising the possibility that lawmakers might simply agree to extend spending at current levels in order to avert a government shutdown.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on a conference call Friday afternoon that "it was disturbing to hear two more Republicans raise the possibility of a government shutdown in the past 24 hours."

Reid noted that Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) acknowledged Thursday night that a shutdown is "a possibility." And Reid accused likely GOP presidential contender Tim Pawlenty of "bragging" in his remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday about shutting down the government in Minnesota during his tenure as governor.

"We can't afford an extreme step like Pawlenty is suggesting," Reid said.

According to his prepared CPAC remarks, Pawlenty notes that Minnesota had its first-ever government shutdown under his tenure.

"I set a record for vetoes in my state," Pawlenty said. "Vetoed billions of dollars of tax and spending increases. Had the first government shutdown in Minnesota's history. Took one of the longest transit strikes in the country's history to get public employee benefits under control. And, in the last budget period, I cut spending in real terms for the first time in the history of my state. The federal government should do the same."

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer also focused on the possibility of a government shutdown, noting that only three weeks remain until the expiration of the current measure funding the federal government.

"We are willing to meet the Republicans in the middle on spending, but they keep lurching to the right," Schumer said.

Simpson contended Friday afternoon that no members of the House GOP leadership want a government shutdown.

"Leadership does not want a government shutdown," Simpson said. "Could it ultimately, in negotiations between the House and the Senate, end up there? Sure. I mean, anything's possible. ... But I can tell you without a doubt leadership does not want a government shutdown, and I don't know anybody who's talking about that as the outcome that they desire."

On the issue of what level of cuts Senate Democrats would be likely to support, Reid said a starting point would be President Obama's suggestion of freezing spending for five years, which would reduce the deficit by a projected $400 billion over 10 years.

A Pew Research Center survey released Thursday showed that when asked about specific government programs, more Americans favor increased rather than decreased federal spending.

As The Post's Jon Cohen notes, the opposition to specific cuts is bipartisan. A majority of national Republicans polled in the Pew survey supports decreases in only one of 18 areas of federal spending -- cutting aid to the world's needy. In all other areas, Republican support for cutting spending is at or below 50 percent.

In several areas, attitudes have shifted significantly since 2009. Two years ago, Americans favored increased spending on military defense and unemployment assistance by double-digit margins; now, about about as many people want increased spending as decreased spending.

On Thursday night, the conservative Republican Study Committee, which had been leading the charge for the bigger slash in spending, called the cuts "a first step toward getting the country's finances in order."

"Next week, the House will debate a bill that sets spending levels for the rest of the fiscal year," RSC Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio) said. "The Appropriations Committee is working to identify numerous places in the budget where responsible cuts can be made, and I applaud their efforts to keep the ball moving in the right direction."

By Felicia Sonmez  | February 11, 2011; 10:19 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: President Obama increases pressure on Mubarak's government
Next: Hosni Mubarak resigns: Reactions from Capitol Hill

Comments

Obama and military cut an additional aircraft engine on new jet fighter that is manufactured in Eric Cantor's district and Eric is upset with them....
He is like all the rest and fails to walk his talk..Boehner wants to included additional aircraft that military doesn't need nor wants, but they are manufactured in his district....If they are using these as work projects, why not go for the infrastructure which we do need

They should also cut their health benefits provided by the tax payers.

Posted by: jfristriut | February 15, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

I hope the Republicans realize that cutting the government by 100 billion dollars means 100 billion less dollars will be going into the economy next year. That's 100 billion less not spent on supplies, computers, office equipment, furniture, vehicles, etc. It means thousands and thousands more thrown out of work who will draw unemployment instead of paying taxes. It also means a lot of invisible programs we take for granted and don't even realize the government provides, cut! Remember how many people didn't realize Medicare was a government program. There are thousands of other services the government provides that dumb-ass Repubicans believe come from God.

When I have to cut my budget, I make sure I know what the consequences of each cut will be. I suspect the Republicans don't have the slightest clue what they are cutting and who will suffer. Worse, they don't care as long as the make their nihilist constituents back hogwallow happy.

Posted by: Trakker | February 13, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Financial columnist, Steve Butler, writes:

“Republicans elected to Congress on the promise of cutting spending by an immediate $100 billion now appear to be hard-pressed to come up with much more than $70 billion in cuts. That hardly moves the needle.

"If we don't want to cut Medicare and Social Security, we have to aim our guns at the only big ticket – wasteful military spending.

At $653 billion per year (not counting the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan) our military budget is 10 times that of the next foreign power, and we spend more than the rest of the world combined.

There is a new book out by Christopher Preble called "The Power Problem -- How American Military Dominance Makes us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free." The book compiles examples of egregious waste and projects that make no practical or economic sense.

"A book that suggests that we might be "less safe, less prosperous and less free" is leaving open the question of how a pared military complex might free up money to be spent in a more productive way. Spending some of it on education and science -- even band and sports -- would be a good start.

However, another point of Preble's book is that many countries enjoy a free ride at our expense. Assuming that those countries are our allies, it would make sense for us to cut back and let them pick up more of the cost for maintaining this New World Order.

Posted by: smi2le | February 13, 2011 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Nice to know that the republican government refuses to establish health care for the people thats similar to their own health coverage. And then they want to extend more tax cuts to the wealthy that did nothing for the country since the worst president and habitual liar in the history of the country enacted them other than put the country in the worst depression since the great depression. What did the republican leadership under Bush do other than destroy the country? Doubled the national debt, gave a tax break and a moving expense to 40 thousand factories to move to China, ignored the trade rules with China and ran us into huge debt! Now they want to stop everything in the country except the military industrial complex and the 1% idiot that makes them go.
Our politicians are paid enough to cover their own medical, lets start by ending their medical plans, including all retired politicians medical plans.
Its also getting very old on these blogs people blaming both parties for problems in our government. As a former republican turned independent, its not the democrats that are any of the problem. Its the stinkin 1% with 90% of the cash funding the tea party and the republican party. And of course they have managed to buy a few more opposing party members too.
Here's a good question for you. Who controls political talk radio? Name a couple names or as many as you can. Now count what party has the highest total. These idiots and cons are paid mostly by the 1% and this is where America gets its information. On the way to work, or the way home. Or at work, or at home squeezing their own chores and responsibilities into their into a time table of stress. No vacation, property tax or sheriffs sale, poverty level jobs, and the Jones next door. No other country in the world slave drives their citizens for the benefit of the military industrial complex and greed. If your going to have a war, you kill them. You don't p____ foot the world bilking tax free money in the name of love! Big oil wins every time, Bush, Cheney and Saudi Arabia win every time.??

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | February 13, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Soylent Green anyone????

Can I have a blond brunette combo?

Posted by: Sanchos_ | February 12, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

"Remember, this is historic,"
____________________________

Historic because, if enacted, they will trigger the 2nd "Great Recession" and Cantor will have to go back to stealing cars and setting buildings on fire to collect insurance money.

Posted by: Sanchos_ | February 12, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the chicken hawk Cantor should save us some money and cut his taxpayer funded premium health insurance. If his constituents can't have it, he shouldn't have it either.

Posted by: ridgeabilly | February 12, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

GOP . Our budget cuts will be Historic " Seeing will be believing. Or as the Good Lord said to Thomas : Come hither Thomas and put thy hand into My side . " Because thou has seen Me, thou hast believed ." Blessed are they that have not seen , but do believe " Well neither the GOP nor the DEMs are anywhere near a Christ-like behaviour so not only can we not believe things they tell us, but we can hardly believe our eyes and our ears when we find them to behave just the opposite of what they say. We certainly don't expect to find God in Washington despite Obama believing that he is the Messiah , but once in a while, we'd like to find a little honesty and someone who follows his Oath of Office .

Posted by: puck-101 | February 12, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I am deeply disappointed with the Republican proposal.

"spending on defense and veterans' programs were protected"

The 750 BILLION DOLLAR BLOATED defense budget includes money spent on wars, non-war defense, veterans, and homeland security. This type of spending constitutes nearly two-thirds of all discretionary spending. Much of it is in typical government waste that plagues all government departments bureaucracies. The rest is is in unwanted weapons systems that even the defense department says it doesn't need. . Yet it has been taken off the table

That's not what we were promised.

Republican Tea Party Rand Paul once said "We will have to look long and hard at the military budget. The most important thing that our government does is our national defense, absolutely. But you cannot say that the doubling of the military budget in the last 10 years has all been spent wisely and there's not any waste in it.

And Back in 2010 Rep. Paul Ryan proclaimed “There are a lot of savings you can get in defense,” he said. “There’s a lot of waste over there, for sure.”

Now In a classic smoke and mirrors tactic Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the House Budget Committee chairman, NOW calls for a 2 percent INCREASE in defense spending over 2010 levels, (so we will now be spending 9.5 billion more than LAST year). They call that a CUT

So I have to ask WHERE IS THE SAVINGS HE PROMISED IN DEFENSE SPENDING?

Where is the Tea Party Congressmen who promise to take a meat axe to government waste, fraud, and overspending no matter where it was found?

OK. You can cut nutritional support for women and infants. You can cut training and employment grants to the states. You can cut border security fencing.
You can even cut funds cleanup of the Great Lakes.

But if you tell us that the Federal Government wastes money, has too many employees, is riddled with corruption and favoritism, overspends on programs AND THEN take the biggest government department of all...defense... AND ACTUALLY INCREASE IT'S BUDGET....you are all a bunch of liars, crooks, cheats .

You have gone back on your word. You have failed those of us who voted for you.
YOU LIE!!!

Posted by: naksuthin | February 12, 2011 2:38 AM | Report abuse

We want cuts. Please remember, some 7 trillion dollars in retirement funds were lost in the melt down. Before that, Enron destroy a huge number of 401's. The Savings and loans did a number on millions more. It is nice to say Social Security was supposed to be a back up, but it became main route after the very stock market George Bush advocated turned very, very sour. It is nice to suggest we need to cut back on medicare, but that is all a whole lot of people have, and many more that need more than merely medicare.

So do the cuts, but don't kill off the old folks.

Posted by: joelwisch | February 11, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

am a racist too. I am prejudice against anyone that relies on the govt instead of taking personal responsibility over their life and affairs. So that means the illegals, most blacks, the gays and host of under educated liberals, all of which we would be a stronger country, if they left to a country where the govt controls their life, since they are too lazy or stupid to do so. Why don't you all go to china or cuba or russia or Venuzuela or Iran? They would love to have you loosers

Posted by: zzapperz | February 11, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

**************
It is apparent that your Mother's attempt to abort you was only partially effective.
It left your body without your brain. You are obviously a vile human being and one really lousy American. Go back under your filthy rock. fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | February 11, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

am a racist too. I am prejudice against anyone that relies on the govt instead of taking personal responsibility over their life and affairs. So that means the illegals, most blacks, the gays and host of under educated liberals, all of which we would be a stronger country, if they left to a country where the govt controls their life, since they are too lazy or stupid to do so. Why don't you all go to china or cuba or russia or Venuzuela or Iran? They would love to have you loosers

Posted by: zzapperz | February 11, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

**************
It is apparent that your Mother's attempt to abort you was only partially effective.
It left your body without your brain. You are obviously a vile human being and one really lousy American. Go back under your filthy rock. fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | February 11, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

am a racist too. I am prejudice against anyone that relies on the govt instead of taking personal responsibility over their life and affairs. So that means the illegals, most blacks, the gays and host of under educated liberals, all of which we would be a stronger country, if they left to a country where the govt controls their life, since they are too lazy or stupid to do so. Why don't you all go to china or cuba or russia or Venuzuela or Iran? They would love to have you loosers

Posted by: zzapperz | February 11, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

**************
It is apparent that your Mother's attempt to abort you was only partially effective.
It left your body without your brain. You are obviously a vile human being and one really lousy American. Go back under your filthy rock. fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | February 11, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

cbarneym wrote: “Conservative Republican plutocrats have most of the wealth and income but continue to demand physical (military) and economic sacrifices from the lower 80 percent of taxpayers.”

Here is the problem with your statements and statistics; most of the wealth and income held by the rich is not dependant or dictated by a party affiliation. The bottom 80% is held down because of big government and the imposed burden on the middle to pay for it. The Democrats continue to grow government and have it paid for through a conglomerate of taxes that heavily burden the middle. Income tax on the rich is a farce. It is the middle that buys the most groceries, gas, energy, insurance and entertainment. We don’t just pay income tax we pay tax on top of the income for everything else we need. And then if we take some of our income and give it to someone else it is taxed again. By the time we turn around there is nothing left at the end of the month for those of us lucky enough to have a job. So the way I see it the demand for physical and economic sacrifices are becoming an overbearing burden because of the huge government we have to support imposed on us mainly by Democrats and all their government programs and special interest groups. Our defense is one thing we can not skimp on but this huge government Democrat plutocracy needs to go on a diet; CUT THE SPENDING. The Democrats grow government, big government cost big money, the bigger the cost the harder the bottom 80% are hit. Shrink government and get the weight off the middle class. Make it easier for the bottom 80% to get into the top 20%.

Posted by: hanocul6 | February 11, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

It's all hog wash until it get's to the president's desk, isn't it?

commonsenseforcommongood.com

Posted by: commonsense4commongoodcom | February 11, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Some one once said that you could not go broke betting on the ignorance of the American people. And most conservative comments help prove the validity of that paraphrase. For example:

Who has the Wealth and Income 1979-2007

Conservative Republican plutocrats have most of the wealth and income but continue to demand physical (military) and economic sacrifices from the lower 80 percent of taxpayers.

Between 1979 and 2007 (Reagan and GW Bush) taxpayer income changed per Congressional Budget Office Data as follows:

* Income of the wealthiest top 1 percent increased from 9.3 to 19.4 percent of all income
* Income of the top 20 percent increased from 45.5 to 55.9 percent
* The bottom 80 percent’s share of all U.S. income went down
*And the national debt increased to $10+ trillion.
(http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf)

Also, for another example, see "Wealth Disparities in U.S. Approaching 1920s Levels," (http://seekingalpha.com/article/189649-wealth-disparities-in-u-s-approaching-1920s-levels?source=article_sb_popular).

And IRS data, "The 400 Individual Income Tax Returns Reporting Highest AGI… 1992-2007," (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf).

So conservatives, get ready for more "sacrifices" because "YOU VOTED FOR IT."

1989 – 2004 Who has the Wealth

Conservative Republican plutocrats must be laughing over their Dom Perignon as they devise new ways to get the gold while giving average blue-collar conservative Republicans, who voted to allow it, the shaft.

Between 1989 and 2004 the following Federal Reserve Board bulletin, "Changes in distribution of wealth 1989-2004 (FRB) p11, p29-30," (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2004.5.pdf) reports that American wealth was divided, and changed, as follows:

(1) Top 1% own 29.5% of all assets (+2.4)
(1) Top 10% own 63.1% of all assets (+1.1)
(2) Top 1% own 70.2% of all bonds (+18.4)
(2) Top 10% own 97% of all bonds (+5.1)
(3) Top 1% own 50.9% of all stocks (+9.6)
(3) Top 10% have 89.2% of all stocks (+6.4)
(4) Top 1% own 62.3% of all business (+8.8)
(4) Top 10% own 90.4% of all business (-0.4)
(5) Bottom 90% owe 72.8% of all debt (-2.1)
(5) Bottom 50% have 2.5% of U.S. net worth (-.05%)


So conservatives, get ready for more “shaft” because "YOU VOTED FOR IT."

Posted by: cbarneym | February 11, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I am a racist too. I am prejudice against anyone that relies on the govt instead of taking personal responsibility over their life and affairs. So that means the illegals, most blacks, the gays and host of under educated liberals, all of which we would be a stronger country, if they left to a country where the govt controls their life, since they are too lazy or stupid to do so. Why don't you all go to china or cuba or russia or Venuzuela or Iran? They would love to have you loosers

Posted by: zzapperz | February 11, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP is serious (which I do not believe they are), they will cut the programs that cause the deficit or change those that could balance it more quickly:

1) Medicare
2) Social Security
3) Defense
4) Taxes

Anything that doesn't hit these directly is a marketing campaign designed to impact only voters that aren't likely to vote Republican anyhow.

I wish this was not true.

Posted by: Rickster623 | February 11, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Thus creating a new Third World Country. Soylent Green anyone????

Posted by: jac3 | February 11, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

TexasOil

Yep, I am racist and proud of it!!

I hate black stupid people and I hate white stupid people.

We all know some common things in behaving and speaking of black and white poeple, but just take a look at those blacks in Republican Party; they behave and speak like white people. And for sure, their wallets and bank accounts are same as white wealthy people. WoW, they really do understand the lives and needs of black Americans with all those Republican Party characteristics and values, they really do.

Posted by: DigestivePolitics | February 11, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Husbyma I believe is your choice you are the one that has to answer for it. What I dont believe in is one penny of my tax payer money going towards it because I dont believe in it and wont answer for it. And there is always the choice of adoption. As far as being disadvantge if you are good at what you do at work your employer will work with you. And there are labor laws protecting you.
And if there was a vast majority believing in being gay is hard wire and there is no way around it then where are they since a marriage bill cant get past.

Digestive politics you said it all. Black normal people? So if you are black you can only vote for black people and if you are white you should only vote for white people. Sounds raciest to me.

Posted by: texasoil | February 11, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

mg11231 wrote: "Just because something is historic doesn't qualify it as being good. 1st explain to the people how all the lost jobs due to your cuts meets your pledge to get America working?"
________________________________
The jobs that the Republican Party's Policies will effect are Government jobs. These jobs are paid for by the tax payer, not the private sector. Our Federal Government is Bohemoth and unsustainable. Not to mention undersirable. When government jobs are cut, more money is available for debt. Also, since taxes were lowered, business' can invest more into their companies and begin hiring again. The rule of thumb should be, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

Posted by: ssol4569 | February 11, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Texasoil: One last comment for you. You could really use a primer in the area of "nuance." Look it up.

The vitriol spewed towards Obama from the right for TWO FULL YEARS is over the top, insulting and, in my opinion, definitely racist. To what degree is arguable, but it is there.

Posted by: hsubyma | February 11, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

mg11231 wrote: "Just because something is historic doesn't qualify it as being good. 1st explain to the people how all the lost jobs due to your cuts meets your pledge to get America working?"
________________________________
The jobs that the Republican Party's Policies will effect are Government jobs. These jobs are paid for by the tax payer, not the private sector. Our Federal Government is Bohemoth and unsustainable. Not to mention undersirable. When government jobs are cut, more money is available for debt. Also, since taxes were lowered, business' can invest more into their companies and begin hiring again. The rule of thumb should be, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging!

Posted by: ssol4569 | February 11, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: texasoil
Husbyma you said that if some one didnt agree with Obama is a raciest. Racism is a biases against one person race. I am not a raciest nor is the Republican party. Ask yourself how many politicians that are democrats from prominently white areas. Then look up republican areas and you will be surprise.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

The problem is, you are comparing black "politicians" and white "politicians".
YOU NEED TO COMPARE HOW MANY BLACK NORMAL PEOPLE SUPPORT THOSE "BLACK REPUBLICANS";
AND GUESS WHAT? YOU WILL BE SURPRISED!!!!!

Posted by: DigestivePolitics | February 11, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Texasoil --

When government tells me I cannot abort a fetus, for whatever reason, this can put me at a disadvantage or a weaker position to compete with men in the workforce. That is a violation of equal rights.

You are wrong. Being gay, by a vast majority of the voices out there, IS hardwired. Just because you wouldn't sleep with a friend adds nothing to the argument. And how telling that you would bring up having a *wife* to dispel the notion otherwise.

I'm going to agree to disagree with you and hope that the two of us would never meet, as we are on COMPLETELY different plains -- intellectually and spiritually.

Posted by: hsubyma | February 11, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

US Government is inffested with cockroaches from oil companies, wall street, insurance companies, energy companies, hospitals, doctors representatives, labor unions and israel zionists.
How can one single real honest and hard working American have any chance for his or her voice to be heard?
HERE'S HOW:
You guys that gather with Glenn Beck and you guys that gather with Jon Stewart
YOU NEED TO STAND TOGETHER AND FIGHT THOSE COCKROACHES IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

Posted by: DigestivePolitics | February 11, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Husbyma you said that if some one didnt agree with Obama is a raciest. Racism is a biases against one person race. I am not a raciest nor is the Republican party. Ask yourself how many politicians that are democrats from prominently white areas. Then look up republican areas and you will be surprise.

Posted by: texasoil | February 11, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Husubyma killing a baby is not equal rights. You really are a gerbil fan. As far as being gay it is a choice not something you are born with. I love my best friend all the way back to when we where children. But I would not have sex with him. That is why I have a wife.

Posted by: texasoil | February 11, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Texasoil:

1. What do random postings about civil rights have to do with this article/my commentary?

2. Your research sounds like it follows Faux News dogma, mine most definitely follows Olbermann/Maddow. And in my opinion, well, you know ...

3. By your argument, Al Gore Jr. would not be pro civil rights because his father would not support legislation of 1964? Not really cause and effect there ...

If you are attacking my political bent, so be it. I am unabashedly progressive and have been for over 57 years. But your response to my post did not stay on point and therefore to me is just grasping.

Posted by: hsubyma | February 11, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Regulations only slows down the economy and gives the corporations with deep pockets more pull over our government by bribing them with contributions. Deregulation will let a average person to compete with the big corporations by not having the big start up or running cost associate with government regulations. Deregulation will breed competition as it did back in the 20s. Edison electric had an monopoly on electric in the north east. they charge a high price for power so very few could buy it. They contribute to the politician that supported them. Both parties. Like GE and Obama on green power. By taking that power away it let other companies to compete with Edison.

Posted by: texasoil | February 11, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

There will never be an end to this crap until we hang those responsible for the crimes that got us here! Want to thin the government out and save a lot of money just prosecute those who thought up and implemented the earmarks, laws, and undocumented expenditures of the unregulated and then recover the illgotten gains under RICO. Want to see the Bush family wet their pants just enforce that one. Should any others be thrown under the bus so be it regardless of affiliations and friendships! just think about the fall out of this at Fox or the Excaserbation In Bull**** network on clear channel, George Carlin would be rolling over hystericly at our finnally rooting out the trash and no more Sarah Palin either! What a wonderful world it would be, oh yea------!

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | February 11, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Texasoil: Never said that a party does not evolve and grow, but Repubs always for equal rights? Can you say reproductive freedom/marriage equality? Sorry. Just as you say, repeat the lie ...

Posted by: hsubyma | February 11, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Please cut all farm subsidies and Social Security and Medicare payments to people who are voting Republican and crying "Socialism'.

Posted by: vigor | February 11, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

To Texasoil:

This isn't depression-era America. I think it's arguable that deregulation has gone on long enough and has done nothing but lead us BACK to an age of monopolies and corporate greed that has all but brought down our economy, if not the entire global economy.

I think simple, sensible regulations need to be instituted (by people way smarter than me). When your children play a game, is there not some set of rules and expectations of fairness that they employ? It boggles my mind that people can even entertain the idea of a capitalist system without SOME rules so those very corporations don't game the system.

Posted by: hsubyma | February 11, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Husbyma your argument falls on deaf ears. it shows you follow the gerbil argument. That if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it. Do some research on your own and you might learn the truth.
Like this.

Beware of the wolf wearing sheep clothes.
1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan. Of course Al Gore Jr was taught about life from his father. His role model.
And in the 80s under Reagan Illegal immigrants where given citizenship. What has the deomogods done for them?
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote in a September edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic Party.”
It was a Republican president Eisenhower that first took up a civil rights bill. The democrats fought against it. Civil rights was not popular back in the 50s. A lot of republicans lost their seats by supporting it which launched Kennedy into office. It was not until popularity changed and the democrats saw a large voting block did they embrace it. Republicans have ALWAYS VOTED FOR EQUAL RIGHTS Democrats have not.
And it was Coolidge that passed the first civil rights bill giving Indians equal rights and citizenship.

Posted by: texasoil | February 11, 2011 1:34 PM | Report abuse

OK guys, here's the plan. First, take our tax cuts. Next cut the budget to boost unemployment and tank the economy. Then we ruin against Obama's handling of the economy.

Posted by: SInop65 | February 11, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Just because something is historic doesn't qualify it as being good. 1st explain to the people how all the lost jobs due to your cuts meets your pledge to get America working?

Posted by: mg11231 | February 11, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Same old, same old. RepubliCorps will throw the poor under the bus and then kiss the azzes of corp. America. These men and women have absolutely no conscience. Jan Brewer, an example ... Oh well -- in two more years, they'll be thrown out, and then the merry-go-round starts all over again.

No change here, but it is NOT my beloved president's doing. Just a bunch of old white men p-o'd that they are losing power and lost out to a black man. Simple as that -- racism -- and you'll never convince this progressive otherwise.

Posted by: hsubyma | February 11, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

All our politicians needs to read about Calvin Coolidge. He took us out of a forgotten depression and into the greatest growth in our history. The roaring twenties. where only 2% of the people paid income taxes. Deregulated the electrical industry to where only a few electrical companies had monopolies and 15% of our population had electric to their house hold to 70% when he left office. He also deregulated business as a whole which brought us the first form of mass communication called the radio and made it possible for ever one to own a car. All by getting the government out of the way.

Posted by: texasoil | February 11, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

100 billion. What a joke when we are spending 4 billion a day in interest payments on our debt. That is equal to 25 days. Our debt For the last 3 years (2009 1.4 trillion, 2010 1.2 trillion. 2011 1.4 trillion. )for a total of over 4 trillion. We need to cut over 1.6 trillion a year to start paying down on our debt. That is a big step. How about if our government spends ONLY WHAT IT TAKES IN . No more deficits and no more tax increases. Then we can start paying down our debt once tax revues increases when our economy starts to grow.

Posted by: texasoil | February 11, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Eric Cantor/GOP budget cuts? H377 NO!

Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous | February 11, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Eric Cantor/GOP budget cuts? H377 NO!

Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous | February 11, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

hanocul6,

People voted Republican because of the unemployment number. When you cut over $100 billion, you have to lay off government workers. Government workers are workers. They will then file for unemployment and the economy will dip back into a recession.

Don't believe me? Look at Great Britain. It's happening there now.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | February 11, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

The $100B is government spending, do we continue to spend and raise the debt ceiling to preserve jobs supported by the government? This is unsustainable and leading us into an economic collapse. We should cut government spending and loosen up the private sector to carry the job market.

Posted by: hanocul6 | February 11, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"Next week we are going to cut more than $100 billion," Boehner said. "And we're not going to stop there. Once we cut the discretionary accounts, then we'll get into the mandatory spending. And then you'll see more cuts."
======================================
Sounds like it is the end of the Government!

Posted by: kishorgala | February 11, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cantor, You know what is even more an "Historic Happening"? Watching John Boehner fend off reports from the tabloids that he was cheating on his wife. This same tabloid took down John Edwards. Hopefully it will have the same luck again.
I knew there was a reason Boehner hadn't created one job yet!

Posted by: sumo1 | February 11, 2011 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Are there any economic analyses of how many jobs are created by $100B in government spending, including those indirectly created via the multiplier effect? Is it logical to assume that the inverse will happen--that cutting the budget by $100B will result in a near-term loss of that number of jobs, so the immediate impact will be the loss of some number of jobs (without the economic stimulus of a tax cut, since that has already happened independently)?

Posted by: FLTransplant | February 11, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

This is the exact shift to fiscal responsibility that was voted into office in the November 2010 elections and all who oppose it will continue to be voted out of office come 2012 and beyond until our Government get's it right. It doesn't matter the sins of the past, it’s what we do to correct it now.

No matter if they are, Democrat, Republican, Independent, and Tea Party or not, continue to spend wastefully, continue to be voted out. The citizens that care are watching intently not by group but by the individual. This spending cut of $100B, is just the tip of the iceberg targeting the low reachable items and it is upward from there. These are just spending cuts, the first step to balancing the budget, and then we have to pay down the debt. Those in the Senate that do not hone in on the spending cuts will be voted out in 2012 as well, right along with the President.

The health and well being of this nation hangs in the balance of our debt. "Just as the rich rule the poor, so the borrower is servant to the lender".

Posted by: hanocul6 | February 11, 2011 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Liberals' "guilt-trip" has been Exposed. Most every American realizes by now that
we All want to help those who Truly need help, unable to work, disabled, etc..
But this country can no longer afford entitlements/welfare/hand-outs., especially when we have proof over the past decades that its not effective.. the same families, the same areas-- are still struggling. No amount of welfare will fix their problems. Those who truly need help should absolutely be helped.
Those who are too lazy to work, who can't find a job that's not "beneath them", those who adjust their lifestyle to the amount of their unemployment check or food stamps, etc.... are a different story.

Posted by: ohioan | February 11, 2011 11:03 AM

I am not sure what you point is here? Are you saying the lazy are responsible for our current financial problems?

Posted by: ModerateVoter | February 11, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The proposed cuts $100 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillion dollar deficits that Obama has racked up ever since taking office. They need to introduce legislation in the House that supports Rand Paul's proposed Senate bill that cuts $500 billion this year, not $100 over several years. At minimum, all spending needs to be rolled back to FY2008 levels.

Posted by: flatlander1992 | February 11, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

These fuax conservative simpletons are going to do far more harm to the economy than good, then blame it on Obama and the poor while they spread their cheeks for the semi-fascist far right rich that tells them what to think and do.

By 2012 the American people are going to enthusiastically kick them to the curb - assuming the country survives their knee-jerk idiocy.

Posted by: rapchat1 | February 11, 2011 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"Historic" budget cuts to mach the "historic" budget deficit that the GOP ran up under Bush junior. As a nation we continuously are bailing out the rich, corporations and wall street because "they are too big to fail".

Meanwhile, the essential services that a reasonable government should provide get cut and cut. As a patriot, I wan't a government that is too big to fail.

Posted by: Mr_Oed | February 11, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Liberals' "guilt-trip" has been Exposed. Most every American realizes by now that
we All want to help those who Truly need help, unable to work, disabled, etc..
But this country can no longer afford entitlements/welfare/hand-outs., especially when we have proof over the past decades that its not effective.. the same families, the same areas-- are still struggling. No amount of welfare will fix their problems. Those who truly need help should absolutely be helped.
Those who are too lazy to work, who can't find a job that's not "beneath them", those who adjust their lifestyle to the amount of their unemployment check or food stamps, etc.... are a different story.

Posted by: ohioan | February 11, 2011 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Liberals' "guilt-trip" has been Exposed. Most every American realizes by now that
we All want to help those who Truly need help, unable to work, disabled, etc..
But this country can no longer afford entitlements/welfare/hand-outs., especially when we have proof over the past decades that its not effective.. the same families, the same areas-- are still struggling. No amount of welfare will fix their problems. Those who truly need help should absolutely be helped.
Those who are too lazy to work, who can't find a job that's not "beneath them", those who adjust their lifestyle to the amount of their unemployment check or food stamps, etc.... are a different story.

Posted by: ohioan | February 11, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

the patriot act is and was crafted to destroy the constitution . it takes away the 4 th 2nd and 1st amendment . they can come and take you for 89 days without even acknowledging you they have you. they can seize any and all your property( guns) with no reason what so ever . they can try you just the same as those guys in gitmo . they arrested a 16 you old for no reason and the mom has yet to see her son.you have no rights as long as the patriot act is law.they have entered and detained 200,000 american citizen homes without a warrant and seized 1,000,000,000 bank-records with no warrant .

Posted by: bmartin1979 | February 11, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

the patriot act is and was crafted to destroy the constitution . it takes away the 4 th 2nd and 1st amendment . they can come and take you for 89 days without even acknowledging you they have you. they can seize any and all your property( guns) with no reason what so ever . they can try you just the same as those guys in gitmo . they arrested a 16 you old for no reason and the mom has yet to see her son.you have no rights as long as the patriot act is law.they have entered and detained 200,000 american citizen homes without a warrant and seized 1,000,000,000 bank-records with no warrant .

Posted by: bmartin1979 | February 11, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Same old crap from these losers. Cut aid to all but the rich and convince people it's for their own good. GOP/Tparty is an absurd throwback to the bad old days. And no, sir, the American people DO NOT expect it. Not that it matters. It will never pass the Senate, and all these TPers will be out on their collective asses after next election.
GOP DOES NOT represent the will of most Americans, and this will be clear in 2012 when President Obama is re-elected by a HUGE majority of voters with brain matter.

Posted by: ronman1 | February 11, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

They will do what they always do, propose to cut money that goes to elderly, children, middleclass & below, protecting us from corps & a destroyed environment but leave an obscene military budget that eats 60% of the entire budget. The only problem is the Senate & President won't agree & they'll be out in two years!

Posted by: crossroadsnow | February 11, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

They will do what they always do, propose to cut money that goes to elderly, children, middleclass & below, protecting us from corps & a destroyed environment but leave an obscene military budget that eats 60% of the entire budget. The only problem is the Senate & President won't agree & they'll be out in two years!

Posted by: crossroadsnow | February 11, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Eric Cantor will cut social security before he cuts the billions of dollars we send to Israel.

Posted by: David77 | February 11, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company