Well, glad you asked. Republicans are evidently split about how to cut spending, but all agree we have to cut spending. Fine. But those cuts seem to be aimed at the poor.
The tension between moderate and conservative Republicans has been on display in the Finance Committee, where Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who heads the panel, is trying to negotiate an approach to satisfy the two factions by balancing $10 billion in cuts between Medicare and Medicaid.
.....
At the White House, the spokesman, Scott McClellan, encouraged Congress to act on extending tax cuts enacted for President Bush and paring spending.
"It's important to keep the tax cuts in place, because that keeps our economy growing," Mr. McClellan said.
Nice. Nice to know where Republican priorities are.
8 comments:
But, hey, at least he's not a tax and spend liberal, right? Apparently it's better to spend money you don't have. We'll just ignore what the Bible has to say about going into debt.
"But those cuts seem to be aimed at the poor."
I read the article and it didn't say anything about where the cuts would come from. So what are you basing this claim on? You whacko liberals are all the same.
Def. "whacko":a person who is regarded as eccentric or mad
I'm not sure how you take that, Streak, but I'm thinking it might be nice complement! I may have a t-shirt made up. At this point, I'm willing to embrace about any label that a Bush supporter sees as opposite to Bush. So, if "not Bush" is "whacko liberal" in anonymous' brain, then I'll wear it as a badge of honor!
Streak
The administration has a golden opportunity (in their minds) to gut social programs. The high cost of war and reconstruction naturally, in their minds, means a need to cut spending anywhere else they can come up with OTHER than the military. Tax cuts are inerrant scripture in their minds. In the guise of fiscal responsibility (laughter) they will now go after the bane of all conservatives and neo-cons- social services. Until "all options are on the table" comes to include the pentagon then we're not really talking about a truly responsible look at the federal budget. Before anyone jump on the "supporting the troups" garbage let me say that there's plenty of discussable military spending that has little or nothing to do with "supporting the troups". The military has golden child status that needs to be removed. Again, for Streaks readers with rational brains, I'm not talking about gutting the military, just rational evaluation and discussion around the subject. I'm not holding my breath.
This whacko liberal read the same linked article and saw several suggestions as to where those cuts might come from. One likely possibility is that the fabulously wealthy recipients of Medicaid and Veterans benefits will see reductions in their benefits.
Farm subsidies are a different matter altogether though because it is big agribusiness that tends to reap those benefits anyway. That should be an interesting debate.
As to anonymous' (if indeed that is your real name) charge, I can't build a decent deck either so, yeah, Streak and I are the same that way, I guess.
Yeah, "wacko" sounds pretty good. The article clearly said that Medicare and Medicaid are on the chopping block (as Bucky noted) and every report I have read on the issue has Republicans listing programs that the poor and disabled rely on. We can argue about that all day, but it is hard to justify cutting those programs while the rich are only expected to receive tax cuts. If that makes me "wacko" then, as Bootleg says, I will wear it proudly on a t-shirt. Or tatoo.
heck, I get called a whacko every time I refuse to drink the kool-aid and tow the gop talking point of the day. Reality is, after all, not an observable phenomenon, but rather, a manifestation of our collective opinions.
With all of the wasteful spending by our government, it absolutely galls me every time I head them say that there is no place to cut spending other than social programs. Did anyone see the federal highways spending bill that was approved? There was so much pork in there it was oinking! Hundreds of millions of dollars could have been saved right there. And Bootleg is right, there are so many other places to cut military spending without cutting aid to deployed troops. No social programs would have to be cut, and the rich would have to wait for their next tax break. But I guess asking our government to be rsponsible is asking too much. It's shameful.
Post a Comment