Fuck its silent in here.......

[Bort]

How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.

Obvious =/= politically feasible.

He who goes after entitlements is he who is honest and a leader and serving the public interest.  Anyone else is just protecting their job.

Chuck is once again showing his support for the Platitude Party.

[Brownie]

Why isn't anyone addressing the latest NewsMax cover story?

[Quality Start Machine]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

[Gilgamesh]

Why isn't anyone addressing the latest NewsMax cover story?

The best argument against organized religion is organized religion.

[R-V]

To be fair to MikeC, this is mostly the afterbirth from Drudge this time.  Malkin can get a pass today, boys.

Also, discretionary spending in the federal budget: 1.37 trillion, of which nearly 700 billion plus is going to the military.

Mandatory spending is the rest.  Where would you like to cut?  The military?  Seems pretty obvious.

Sorry TEC.

How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.

Obvious =/= politically feasible.

We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. We spend 4 times as much as China and Russia combined. How about we just spend twice as much as China & Russia combined? That'd free up $400 billion a year.

Next, we subject all wages to the Social Security portion of FICA (currently it's capped at $102,000). I'll figure that at $100 billion a year.

There's half a trillion towards the deficit. And we haven't even gotten into real tax reform (increase the standard deduction and phase out itemized deductions/home-ownership incentives - why should the government care if I own or rent a home?)

[morpheus]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

[Gilgamesh]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

[morpheus]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.

[Gilgamesh]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.

So, facts be damned, this is what they supposedly stand for, therefore, they should go for it?

[morpheus]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.

So, facts be damned, this is what they supposedly stand for, therefore, they should go for it?

"Facts?"  I think you misspelled "votes on previous stuff."  Look, I know that during the Bush years the party was anything but "limited government."  That doesn't mean that they can't attempt to stand for that now.  Why should forward-looking policy be 100% constrained by prior actions?

And in 2012, or 2016, if/when a GOP President gets elected, they should stand for it then, too.  Why shouldn't they?  Because Bush and the Trent Lotts of the world never met a spending bill they didn't like, that means that going forward it should be the same?

I read somewhere once (paraphrasing) that "some future Congress/Administration will do the country a great service by spending its entire term repealing stuff that the government shouldn't be doing."  I hope that happens one day.

[Wheezer]

I read somewhere once (paraphrasing) that "some future Congress/Administration will do the country a great service by spending its entire term repealing stuff that the government shouldn't be doing."  I hope that happens one day.

There's a difference between "reasoning from first principles," "reasoning from ideology," and having the good sense to see what's right in front of your nose.

[R-V]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

So you opposed the GOP health care proposal in 1994?

[morpheus]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

So you opposed the GOP health care proposal in 1994?

In 1994 I was in the process of converting from a bleeding-heart liberal to an orphan-exploiting conservative.

[Gilgamesh]

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.

So, facts be damned, this is what they supposedly stand for, therefore, they should go for it?

"Facts?"  I think you misspelled "votes on previous stuff."  Look, I know that during the Bush years the party was anything but "limited government."  That doesn't mean that they can't attempt to stand for that now.  Why should forward-looking policy be 100% constrained by prior actions?

And in 2012, or 2016, if/when a GOP President gets elected, they should stand for it then, too.  Why shouldn't they?  Because Bush and the Trent Lotts of the world never met a spending bill they didn't like, that means that going forward it should be the same?

I read somewhere once (paraphrasing) that "some future Congress/Administration will do the country a great service by spending its entire term repealing stuff that the government shouldn't be doing."  I hope that happens one day.

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

[morpheus]

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?