And you don’t!
No, friend, that’s not what’s important. You’ve had enough hints, now you can go figure it out yourself.
As opposed to conservatives who enact fiscal policy that simply does’t work.
Also, the Clinton tax levels aren’t taking every penny.
You know, I’m damned tired of hearing conservatives scream, “We can’t afford it!” when I see:
Republicans approve wars in Irag and Afghanistan, costing four to six trillion dollars, then block a 24 billion dollar VA bill.
Romney proposed increasing the military budget by two trillion dollars, but Republicans block Medicaid expansion.
God forbid they spend any extra money to mend a person, but when it comes to maiming them, apparently the sky’s the limit!
Who cares how much it costs, as long as you’re capable of killing everyone.
Conservatives will destroy the world, and they’ll take every penny you have to make it happen.
The Clinton tax levels don’t even begin to pay for all your ambitions.
Pure dishonesty. From your article, Romney’s suggestion is $2T over 10 years. Using the same way of measurement, Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion is $4.5T over 10 years.
Not to mention those who want to increase military spending in the Republican base are just a faction of the party, albeit a powerful one. I can’t defend Republican politicians for wanting to increase spending or pass tax cuts without spending cuts. But I can defend my belief that cutting taxes and spending is sound economic policy.
And I will support politicians of either party who favor reducing the size of government. Like Bill Clinton, who declared “The era of Big Government is over” and cut spending to 18% of GDP. Obama apparently was pretty peeved about that because he’s reversed nearly all of Clinton’s government-shrinking policies.
Really? What are my ambitions? Or are you just saying something you know nothing about?
Specifics?
Ah, yes, the Clinton tax levels … federal budget surpluses … the economy growing so quickly the Fed chairman had to warn of “irrational exuberance” … oh, wait, all that was bad?
The government currently spends a lot more than it takes in, under Clinton tax levels. Are you satisfied with the current federal commitments to various programs? If so, you still need to raise some more money.
If you want the government to do even more things, then you need a LOT more money, and a plan for managing it all would be helpful, since the President has proven that the government is unmanageable by elected officials at its current size. I’ll be really interested in hearing about that plan.
I have no idea if this is factually correct or not. But based on your batting average, I’m betting you pulled this out of your ass as well.
You are unaware of the current deficit? Really?
You are unaware we no longer operate under Clinton tax rates? Really??
Ah, so you favor raising middle class taxes to Clinton levels?
Unfortunatley, you still fall a little short, so you need more money.
When the US is already spending more on the military than the next ten countries combined, why must we keep increasing the military budget at all? If you’re truly interested in cutting spending, the military is a prime candidate for consideration. However, I"m not going to hold my breath waiting for any GOP congressman to suggest this.
I stand by my original point.
So which is it, “a lot more” or " a bit short"? Or neither?
You were trying, by manipulating time scales, to contrast supposed huge sums spent on things you don’t like to supposed tiny amounts for things you do. That’s the dishonest part.
If you thought your “original point” could stand on its own, you wouldn’t have twisted numbers to introduce it.
The “a little short” is sarcasm. adaher is employing something similar to humor.
That was not my intent at all. In all candor, when I posted the original links, I didn’t even notice the time scales. That doesn’t make me “dishonest”. I will however, own up to “negligent/ignorant” in this case. My apologies.
On that note, it’s telling to me that you did not address the 4-6 trillion cost of the wars versus the 24 billion VA funding. Is there a time scale issue there, as well?
What I’m trying to do (and I strongly object to your misrepresentation of what I actually am trying to do) is point out a pattern of Republican hypocrisy when it comes to spending issues. While I may have made a poor analogy, I still stand by my original point, which is this:
Again, if spending is truly a Conservative concern, why do I not see any GOP proposals to cut military spending? Not only do I not see proposed cuts, I instead see proposed increases.
Why is that? I’m waiting for a real response here, not a nitpick.
Back to Virginia, it looks like McCauliffe was planning his own dirty tricks to get Medicaid expansion done. the GOP just outmaneuvered him:
In any case, McCauliffe’s only leverage was to cause a shutdown. Medicaid expansion wasn’t going to happen in any case. This little “trick” the Republicans pulled avoids a shutdown, which I’ve been told is a good thing.