This won't change a thing:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

So, the Republicans have a brilliant idea to save the government $2.5 trillion dollars. It only involves little things like cutting $900,000,000 from the Pelosi-Reid bill system while also eliminating the act that pays prevailing wages for construction workers. *SO* good to know that the Republican Party's looking after the little guy. And so long as they keep ignoring the three biggest slices of the federal budget, Social Security, Medicare, and Defense the deficit will rise regardless.

So as usual their idea changes nothing except to perpetuate what has already failed, while avoiding dealing with the hard issues that are going to keep on getting bigger the longer they're ignored. Though of course it should be obvious if the GOP cuts the first two its base will ensure its entire electoral slate's serving on the board of lobbying/PACs when it is suddenly jobless and most of the GOP base is rather too old to worry about the direct effects of the latter. While simultaneously being against a latter-day GI bill of the sort that quite a few of the GOP base itself got where it was due to it.

Comments

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

What I want to know is what ever happened to making most of our money off of tariffs and excises? Where's all the talk of raising tariffs and excises?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States

After that, the State could never go back to being what it was. And frankly the GOP will never cut any of the three mentioned above so they may believe they'll balance the budget but nobody else does.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

i see very little about tariff policy in that article

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The Republicans fighting tooth and nail for tax cuts for the rich and screwing the working man while calling democrats fat cat elitists and claiming to be the party of the working man.

This is new and different.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Never said it was. Just pointing out what fiscal conservatism actually means IRL......

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Damn those rich people (aka small business owners) for creating jobs.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there's somewhere you're going with this.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Republicans have such a hard-on for the National Endowment for the Arts.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And it's so odd, because cavemen typically liked art.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And it's an absolute pee-hole-in-the-snow for the deficit. You see where Gates wanted to cancel some DoD projects, but Congress wouldn't hear of it! Why? Jobs in their districts. Of course, DoD jobs are somehow more effective dollars than say stimulus dollars for infrastructure projects like paving roads, or building things.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Just for the record, you were the non-partisan guy, right?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I am. I don't support falsehood when anybody says it, as my post about the Democrat who behaved like a RL troll noted.....

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It's not even about which political theory works better. One party relies on scare tactics, falsehoods and propaganda, violent eliminist speech and the other on weak promises and folds at the drop of a hat. Neither of those positions is actually about policy or political theory.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't see how this "changes nothing," as it finally reduces the union nonsense and nukes some clearly unconstitutional activity. This is why they were elected back into power.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

They promised to eliminate the deficit. This will not do that. They politically are unable to do it as it is, what with their fetish for multiple expensive wars while simultaneously paring down revenue.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Uh, they did? I don't recall that - I know the deficit was an issue, but these are even deeper cuts than originally promised by Republican leadership.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Where?

I never saw such a promise.

In fact I remember their being criticized for NOT making specific promises like that.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

I don't see how this "changes nothing"

It won't pass.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's a different issue, though.

[404.livejournal.com]

Hmm, so how do you expect the House to make any major substantive cuts in either SS or Medicare? If they even talked about it, people like you or riotpredicted would wail and gnash their teeth saying that the GOP want old people to eat dog food and die. The only part of the budget people like you will agree is too big is the military. Face it.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I would expect them "to make major cuts to SS or Medicare" as in "de-fund and take SS and Medicare off the books". I mean, that is what they believe in, so that is what I expect from them.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I mean, that is what they believe in, so that is what I expect from them.

I'm sure you meant to say, "that is what I say they believe in..."

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

All partisan bickering aside, and disregarding what a layman on this matter I am, I'm thinking your military could still be made far more effective than it is now with a fraction of the money that's being spent to support it. But that would put a huge dent into the pockets of some guys so let's face it, that ain't gonna happen.

the GOP want old people to eat dog food and die

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And while they talk a good game we well know what happens when conservatives/republicans are in charge of government - massive spending continues unabated.

Because the only thing they want to cut funding to is NEA. And health care reform, despite having nothing to replace it with.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

While it is true that the Republicrat party cannot be trusted to be serious about cutting the deficit and that no serious discussion about the deficit can occur unless both Social Security and Medicare are on the table these cuts are still worthwhile and do serve a purpose.

Call it a trial balloon.

The main reason no politician has been willing to seriously address the budget is because every time they do some idiot starts calling them baby killers who want children and old people shot so they aren't a burden on society.

So the only option is to actually make some small and relatively innocuous cuts that *DON'T* touch entitlements and see just how much it costs them politically. Then maybe next time around they can actually offer up some more serious cuts and see how those go.

Further as others have noted, even if the Republicrats *WERE* interested in cutting entitlements or the Military it wouldn't do them any good because even those who should support the effort won't support it because of how easy it is to demonize the issue.

Just look at the flack that is raised for their daring to oppose and try to reverse Obamacare, which in reality is the biggest corporate bailout ever proposed by the government. It's like they went to the Drug companies, Hospital companies, Health Insurers, and medical device manufacturers and asked them how they could best maximize their profits and then enacted it into law. The only one of those groups who had any complaint was the Insurers and their only complaint is the penalty for not buying Insurance was too small, outside of that they love the plan.

The only reason Liberals support this atrocity is because it was proposed by one of their own. Had they Republicrats done this they would be rioting in the streets against it.

And yet the Republicrats still get attacked daily for opposing it.

Unless we the people start waking up to the fact that we have a real problem with the deficit and that there is no choice but to make major cuts to Social Security and Medicare no politician can be expected to realistically support and more specifically propose any major overhauls of those systems because they would never last long enough in office to see the changes made.