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.
The uber-liberal Washington Post can't cover for the Dems concerning their lies about the federal budget anymore.
The WaPo Fact Checker gives Democrats "Two Pinocchios" for the talking point:
Quote:
This has become a constant refrain by Democrats -- that they have already gone some distance to accommodate the Republicans' efforts to cut federal spending. We already awarded Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) two Pinocchios for this claim, but the talking point keeps popping up again and again.
[...]
The 2011 fiscal year began Oct. 1, but Congress, then led by the Democrats, failed to pass any of the annual spending bills that would fund the government. Instead, lawmakers have passed a series of stopgap measures, known as continuing resolutions, based largely on 2010 spending. The most recent one was approved this week, though it also included $4 billion in cuts based on proposals in Obama's 2012 budget blueprint.
Yes, it's a bit confusing. Lawmakers mix and match the three budgets in their rhetoric faster than any three-card monte player.
When Democrats say they are meeting Republicans halfway, they are talking about "cuts" from Obama's never-enacted 2011 budget. By the White House's math, they have proposed $41 billion in cuts from the 2011 budget, plus $4 billion in the latest stopgap measure, plus $6.5 billion in unspecified cuts annnounced Thursday, for a total of $51 billion. But there was no heavy lifting involved, and certainly little discrete examination of which programs to preserve and which ones to cut. It's lot like saying you are running a 100-yard dash, but starting on the 50-yard line.
So here are the real numbers. Starting from the 2010 budget, the GOP are seeking $61 billion in cuts. The Dems, by contrast, have agreed to just over $10 billion in cuts --- the $4 billion they just had to eat because of Speaker Boehner's slick maneuvering, plus an "unspecified" $6.5 billion. That ain't halfway, and it makes Democrats liars here.
It's also not like Democrats willingly cut the $4 billion in the two-week CR. That's not really part of their offer. That's just what they had to take because they ended up with no choice. Remember, Reid's initial position was that there should be no cuts in a short-term CR.
Um, since when is the Washington Post ANYWHERE near liberal? Please check facts, and read some of their editorials while you're at it. That will tell you who they are, and what their agenda is.
Um, since when is the Washington Post ANYWHERE near liberal? Please check facts, and read some of their editorials while you're at it. That will tell you who they are, and what their agenda is.
Exactly. They haven't been liberal for a VERY long time. Especially the editorial page. On any given day it is conservative.
It's lot like saying you are running a 100-yard dash, but starting on the 50-yard line.
Bingo!
I know in the news recently the Dems have been complaining about 2 or 3 billion in cuts for the SS administration. Simply not the case because they are basing it on Obamas bloated budget. Fact is only something 150 million would be cut.
Exactly. They haven't been liberal for a VERY long time. Especially the editorial page. On any given day it is conservative.
Washington Post conservative?
Pro gun banning to end with confiscation.
Pro abortion.
Pro illegal alien.
Pro drug legalization.
Pro gay marriage.
Anti death penalty.
Pro higher taxes on all incomes and products.
Pro crippling the US economy through the Obama carbon tax.
Anti nuclear power.
Yeah, I see how you say the Post is conservative since the above are all editorial stances the paper has taken over the last few months. Regular Tea Partiers they are.
Um, since when is the Washington Post ANYWHERE near liberal? Please check facts, and read some of their editorials while you're at it. That will tell you who they are, and what their agenda is.
You believe Obama is a moderate as well, don't you? C'mon, admit it.
What you really mean is that they've stayed liberal in the true sense of the term. Because the Post hasn't kept up the race towards socialism (like New York & LA Times) then they are somehow conservative.
I'm sorry, but many of us are smart enough to understand the truth.
Some of the cuts coming from the tea party, I support and I'm a liberal. I also like some of the ideas Tom Coburn is putting forward.
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.
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.
