And you think that’s a good thing. The only objective is to think you’ve made the Democrats lose something, no matter the human toll. Is that it?
McCauliffe was willing to shut down the government. That’s crazy.
Depends on the reason, don’t it? What do you think McAuliffe (and please learn how to spell sometime; you’ll look less ignorant) wants to accomplish? :dubious:
Yes, of course. The 24 billion VA funding is yearly, I presume. The 4-5 Trillion cost is over what - 13 years? And it’s apples and oranges anyway.
First of all, I am a Conservative, and I am all pro-cutting spending, including the military. Second, first you have to cut the military’s mission, then you cut the budget. And third, it was the Conservatives that set up the sequester - which cut military spending. Didn’t you notice?
You say, “Of course,” then you say “I presume?” and you accuse me of being dishonest? Anyway, you presume wrong, it’s over a 10 year period:
I’ll be impressed if you can find me any GOP congressman that will take responsibility for sequestration military cuts specifically ; all I hear from that side is that the cuts will "jeopardize our national security.”.
On the other hand, I did hear a Republican proposal to Save Military From Sequestration By Cutting Social Security which, yet again, strengthens my original point.
Don’t get lost in the details. I’m simply asking why, as a (strong) general rule, Republicans are all for cuts as long as the military is not on the cutting table. If you’re for cutting the military, as well, why are you even arguing against this point?
Why specifically? Sequestration cut military and other things, it was a package. You can’t just “specifically” cut out one part of the package.
Simple - Republicans (I am not one) think we need a very strong military. Mostly because they envision a large mission for it. I myself would prefer a smaller vision/mission, and thus a smaller budget. But you know what - since I know that Democrats are salivating to cut military budget, I would want those cuts in the military budget matched by cuts in entitlements. You, on the other hand, want the military cut but entitlements enlarged. And THAT is why you won’t see military cuts.
Well, he’s trying.
Why specifically? Because I was asking why I do not see any GOP proposals to cut military spending. It’s disingenuous of you to use the sequestration as an example of the GOP cutting the military, because, as you also just said of the sequestration, “… it was a package. You can’t just ‘specifically’ cut out one part of the package.” In fact, members of the GOP tried to weasel out of that part of the sequestration by cutting Social Security, thus further proving my point.
That still doesn’t address the fact that our military budget is already HUGE. I see absolutely no justification to blindly continue increasing the budget of the military when, as mentioned before, it’s already greater than the other top 10 military budgets combined. I strongly believe many members of the GOP would increase military spending up to 70% of the budget (as it was after WWI) and beyond if they could.
You know, you used to hear Republicans say things like:
some members did. I don’t approve of that. I like the sequester, I just wish it was bigger. I bet you don’t.
Your vision of the mission of the US military probably differs from Republicans’ vision. Surprised?
I guess there’s been some conservative uproar - for the umpteenth time no doubt - over the recent announcement that the CBO will no longer score the ACA in its entirety. Well, here’s the reason why.
Basically, the CBO’s maneuver matches up entirely with historical precedent: the agency doesn’t score this kind of legislation after it has already been enacted. The nearest analogue to this is Medicare Part D, which hasn’t been fully scored since its original enactment.
So, adaher, much ado about nothing.
Doesn’t matter to me. The public believes it will add to the deficit, and given that many aspects of ACA that raise money have been delayed or done away with, it’s looking like a pretty sure thing that it will in fact add to the deficit.
This is not a sure thing – not even close, in fact.
I also just want to point out that basically nobody in the entire country actually even cares about the deficit in the first place. Some people say they do, sure, but this abstract “deficit” is really just used as a metaphor to criticize the particular government action or service that they deem undesirable. So even if the ACA DOES add to the deficit - which, again, is far from a sure thing - it wouldn’t matter anyway except to people who already have institutional problems with the law itself.
It matters to the extent that Democrats will someday want to sell another entitlement as decreasing the deficit. So we go back and show that they lied about ACA, and the new entitlement goes down to crushing defeat.
Except, of course, that there’s no good data that actually suggests the ACA increases the deficit.
Obviously, we’ll know more later. so in 20 years or so, the next time Democrats have control of all three branches and they want universal immortality, we can point to ACA’s deficit results to analyze their claims about cost.
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”
Not even that, from these people. It’s an excuse for opposing anything the majority party is for, on that basis alone, not merit or cost and benefit.
CBO scoring said the opposite. Maybe they’re just as skewed as anything else that tells **adaher **something he doesn’t want to hear.
CBO scoring is only if all spending cuts and taxes are in place. They aren’t.
Dopers may be amused to hear the views on ACA by leading GOP intellectual Glen Beck.
True, we are *not *implementing Obamacare fast enough or expanding it far enough. Glad you agree.