Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what do Democrats suggest on out of control spending? Oh, I see... more government spending.
The difference is we tend to spend that money here at home where it's needed. We've spent alot of money on infrastructure (you know, that **** that the government is actually supposed to take care of here) that was largely neglected under Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_Thumb
You guys are funny. If Bush is spending on the wall street bailout, than it is out of corruption. If Obama is doing it, then it is out of necessity. If Bush is bombing countries, he is a war monger. If Obama is doing it (again, I mention Pakistan), then it is out of necessity. Obviously the right does the newspeak. But you left are no better.
Oceania does not need a Ministry of Truth; when most people rewrite history in their own minds.
None of those views are my own, so I don't really know what your point is here.
The difference is we tend to spend that money here at home where it's needed.
No. The Democrats tend to spend money everywhere, hence, the reason why we are going broke. They are just as happy sending money overseas as the Republicans. In fact, they wrote the book on nation building and overseas spending. Most democrats will ignore this.
And the last stimulus had very little to do with infrastructure and shovel-ready projects. Most of it is just being flushed to government corporations. You state that this is being done in a responsible manner. Why are you giving the left a pass.
Seriously, you guys are being "bamboozled". It is not OK to give money to the big banks and wallstreet (which was overwhelming voted in by the Bush Administration and Democrats). But it is OK to give money to all these slimy government corporations? Yes, giving company ABC a few billion dollars to generate two jobs is a great investment.
Last edited by Thomas_Thumb; 07-24-2010 at 09:59 PM..
But to get back to the OP's question, I think we need to find candidates who are willing to reduce overseas spending. I know that Barney Frank (D) and Ron Paul (R) have suggested cutting military defense spending. That is where I would start.
How are GOP candidates saying they will achieve a smaller federal government if elected? Obama is spending and hiring feds right now and it isn't just temp Census workers. I'm wondering, if elected, are Republican candidates saying they will eliminate Departments? Eliminate Agencies within Departments? Let people go who were hired in the last so many years? Eliminate executives? Eliminate programs? Eliminate positions, pemanently? Have a long term hiring freeze and not replace workers who leave, just let them go by attrition? Give incentives to people to retire and not replace them?
I'm sick of political candidates just mouthing what we want to hear. I'd like to hear how GOP candidates running for the Senate, House and eventually for President plan to make the federal government smaller so we can hold their feet to the fire and make sure they follow through after we elect them. So, I'm asking in the elections forum: Which GOP candidates are saying they are for a smaller government and how are they proposing it be achieved? And will some TV/radio hosts/newspaper reporters please ask them?
What is the alternative? An ever growing engorged FEDZILLA?
Well we have already heard form the democrat and thr republican leaders i the new commision at the governors conference held rec. The word is cuts coming in federal programs. I also expect higher taxes either direct or indirect. The commission will make it easy to do this with new blood in congress plus those seeing the light of 11% unfavorable ratings. We have cut before and can agian.Then listening to the governors confrence they are way ahead in going the same.If you look at europe they are already starting down the cuts road.
What is the alternative? An ever growing engorged FEDZILLA?
By allowing the Federal government to continue to grow, the GOP is signing its own death warrant. The federal government is a giant petrie dish to grow Democrat voters because government employees vote their pay checks/benefits. Obama and Pelosi/Reid know this.
How are GOP candidates saying they will achieve a smaller federal government if elected? Obama is spending and hiring feds right now and it isn't just temp Census workers. I'm wondering, if elected, are Republican candidates saying they will eliminate Departments? Eliminate Agencies within Departments? Let people go who were hired in the last so many years? Eliminate executives? Eliminate programs? Eliminate positions, pemanently? Have a long term hiring freeze and not replace workers who leave, just let them go by attrition? Give incentives to people to retire and not replace them?
I'm sick of political candidates just mouthing what we want to hear. I'd like to hear how GOP candidates running for the Senate, House and eventually for President plan to make the federal government smaller so we can hold their feet to the fire and make sure they follow through after we elect them. So, I'm asking in the elections forum: Which GOP candidates are saying they are for a smaller government and how are they proposing it be achieved? And will some TV/radio hosts/newspaper reporters please ask them?
Chris Christie and Jan Brewer seem to know the formula.
Not just talk either. They even have some Democratic support for their policies to be sovereign.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.