Conservatives Demolish Democrats During Mid-Terms & This Is What We Get? More Spending, More Pork, And More Class Warfare

Loading

Allah makes a good point here on Paul Ryan:

Ryan voted for TARP, for the tax on the AIG bonuses, and now he’s voting for this. Are you guys sure you want him as Palin’s running mate in 2012? ‘Cause I’m thinking we might be able to land him as a speaker for RINOcon.

What’s he talking about?

Just the fact that Paul Ryan said today that while this tax deal isn’t what they would of written, it’s going to have to suffice: (9 minute mark in the video)

Which pretty much means it’s going to pass. No way it’s going down:

Republicans in the House say they will avoid this trouble in the future, arguing that a deal of this nature wouldn’t see the light of day in a Republican majority. And the leaders insist that the members who have been the most vocal against the bill won’t deal a fatal blow.

So far anyway, that’s true. House GOP leaders expect only 15 to 20 conservatives to vote against President Barack Obama’s tax-cut compromise, which would mean that only 60 out of 255 Democrats would have to vote for the legislation to secure passage — not a heavy lift, the majority says. The White House Tuesday said Obama and his economic team was making calls to House lawmakers to line up support for the plan.

Democrats Tuesday night seemed leaning toward structuring debate to allow a vote on changing the estate tax provision – a measure that would likely render the compromise dead if passed. But even staunch supporters of that change insist it has little chance in the House.

“The likelihood of it passing is not good,” said Ways and Means Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell (N.J.).

Separately, 31 Blue Dog Democrats gave the current deal a boost, sending House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter indicating their support for the bill.

Steve King of Iowa:

“There’s a real opportunity on the other side of the new year,” King told POLITICO. “If Harry Reid is backing up this far now, and the president is accommodating our principles, why would we do the massive spending on this deal?

Either way it looks like this deal is going to be passed and we will see the vampire tax increase from 0% to 35%, increased spending with nothing to offset that spending but no increase in our taxes and probably a huge amount of earmarks to boot!

Way to go spineless RINO’s…way to go.

We took more seats away from Democrats then we have in four decades and this is what we get? There was a reason Conservatives demolished the Democrats last month and this deal WAS NOT IT. In fact it was the exact opposite. The tax rates going up would be disastrous for this economy and no one wants that. We had the leverage in this deal….but gave it away.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good one Curt. Why play weak when you’ve got the strength – in the form of the backing of the electorate. It makes no sense.

Each and every dollar of increased tax collected, such as the 35% “vampire tax” as you call it, is one dollar which the government doesn’t have to cut on spending.

Redistribution is redistribution by any other name.

It seems no one in Washington, or at state level understands that there are thousands of corners in the vast bureaucracy of government which stifle small to medium sized enterprises. Actually, there’s plenty stifling of large ones too. We’re not hearing much about cut backs, . . . or about the stimulation of entrepreneurship. The loudest noise comes from the Dems who want to tax the crap out of it.

I don’t understand how there’s absolutely zero politcal-tactical thinking on the right. The Democrats and their MSM enablers have spent the last month talking about tax cuts, when no tax cut has been proposed. Why can’t a leading Republican come out and say:

“We are heartened by the President’s interest in economy-stimulating tax cuts. Therefore, we propose not an extension to the Bush tax cuts, but a further reduction of income tax rates for all Americans.”

Extension of the Bush tax cuts (by itself) is a compromise. To agree NOT to lower taxes, but maintain current levels is a compromise. Extending unemployment insurance is NOT a compromise, it’s a gift to the socialist wing of American government.

Looking at this in terms of monetary policy, the proposed combination of extending the Bush tax cuts and extension of unemployment insurance is actually a tax increase. It’s a tax increase not because someone will have to pay the debt at some point in the future, but because deficit spending is, by nature, money printing. When the gov’t deficit-spends, it inflates the money supply and dilutes the purchasing power of all Americans.

Our government overlords have agreed to dilute our purchasing power. The scary thing is that they don’t even know what they’re doing.

Good post… sad day. Guess it’s going to take more than one election cycle, I hope the bond market gives us enough time, doesn’t look good.

Linked at RR

APOCALYPSE NOW? No . . . but Soon Enough

I suppose the Republicans are afraid of being demagogued again for “shutting down the government”?

It should be apparent that all politicians have little stomach for spending cuts and a large appetite for spending. This country is flooded in red ink and these fools are subsidizing more red ink. They tell us they heard us in the last election, well to paraphrase one of the congressmen ” They Lied”. We cannot trust any of them, this is why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution.

Bankrupt, it’s not about party.

Shut the government down, what could be worse than uncontrolled spending and massive new ear marks being concieved to add to the debt.

We were discussing the ”lame duck” session.

Did you know that it was included in the Constitution because it might take so long for newly-elected members to get to the seat of power via horse and buggy?

Seems if anything is ripe to be changed out of the US Constitution it is this.

Our new Congress could have been seated two or three days after the election.

So, either the election or the date to start the NEW Congress could safely be changed.

Who’s with me?

Even a small public push for this might cause a snowball.

Nan G — Great idea, and completely Constitutional under Article I, Section 4:

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Don’t jump the gun there people.
We still have the same old congress that was in before the November election.
Personally I wanted the “R” to left town.
Let the dems do what they want . If the “R”S stay then they are playing their game by their rules.
Lets not blame the R’s just yet lets wait to see what they do in the first 90 days of the new congressional session.

Well the “Son of Porkulus” bill just passed the Senate, and all but a handful of Republicans (Cobert, Demint, Ensign, Sessions, Voinovich) voted “aye”. I just sent this letter to my Senator (Burr):

Earmarks.

I just received your response from a previous letter of mine opposing earmarks. You wrote: “I will continue to work with like minded Senators to ban earmarks…”

Yet you just voted for the Omnibus Budget bill which, if reports are accurate, contains 6,488 earmarks – some of them yours, no doubt.

It sure seems like you told me one thing and then did another. How can I believe you in the future?

As you probably know, the Asheville Tea Party refused to endorse your reelection specifically because of your history of loading up bills with earmarks. I argued with them strongly over that, but now you’ve made me look like a fool.

It’s really discouraging that Kay Hagan did the right thing here and you didn’t.

I want to know why you voted for this pork-laden abomination of a bill.

The big problem with the Republican Party is it’s too vague on issues nor does it fight for the issues it does believe in.

For instance Republicans in office want Social Security and have accepted the income from Social Security to pay for projects yet complain at the same time that it’s harming the budget. Social Security was not always part of the budget. LBJ made Social Security part of the budget so he could steal the money for the Vietnam War and to pay off the Great Society. The Republicans should take Social Security out of the budget. The 2010 Federal government brought in $940 billion for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and spent $1.421 trillion on those programs. First the Republicans should take though out of the budget and force those programs to stand on their own. People are going to be paying more and getting less benifits, but that’s the case with any pay to play program.

The Republicans are going to have to look at the military expenses. One big cost is air support. Calling in one F-18 sortie can cost millions of dollars. The government should look at cheaper alternatives including guided artillery rounds, drones and turboprop aircraft. The Republicans should look into and dump the aging bomber fleet, foreign bases that are far from the enemy states and navy fleets to nowhere. Also the Republicans should look into the $80 billion a year spent on secret operations a year and what the U.S. is getting out of that.

The Republicans should also look into concrete tax numbers. The low tax mantra is vague. For instance Republicans say low taxes help small businesses, the middle class and the poor. Money managers, lawyers, land managers, real estate agents (just look at Donald Trump), entertainers (including athletes), trust fund babies and people that run unions make a lot of money yet create few jobs and often donate to the Democratic party. The Republicans can look good raising taxes while starving the Democratic Party of funds. Also another thing the Republicans can do is get the SEC to relable companies that hide money offshore as foreign companies and ban offshore accounts by U.S. citizens. Changing a company to a foreign company increase the taxes on the shareholders and on the company doing business in the U.S. It also make the bottom line look good for the Republicans because the Democrats couldn’t say U.S. companies had offshore accounts and some companies, such as Google would be erased from those U.S. companies hording cash. Google alone would erase $33.38 billion off the list.

The Republicans need to define small government as a ratio to GNP. Everytime the Republicans define small government, it gets larger.

The Republicans need to get off the create jobs in their district kick. Creating jobs through government makes government larger.

The Republican Party also need to define the budget in its terms. Give out number such as a percentage of income. The Republican Party just says the government is too big. That’s a sign of poor leadership. Present the numbers of don’t say anything about big government.

I was right. My RINO Sen. Burr had 38 earmarks in the Omnibus Budget bill. See the full list at Jamie Dupree. The top two porkers are both Republicans. Cochran (R-MS) with 230, and Wicker (R-MS) with 199.

Disgusting.