So in the days after the election, it seems the Republicans believe repealing health care reform is how they won seats in the House. How clueless are they? If the Republicans get focused on repealing health care, they will be headed down the same path as the Dems on Tuesday. I am totally amazed at how clueless our elected officials are - both Dems and Republicans. Health care reform had virtually nothing to do with Tuesday's election results. There is a large part of the electorate that wants health care reform.

 

Here are the priorities this government better get focused on:

 

1. Economy/jobs - The Dems rode into office on Bush's horrible economy and the Repubs won elections Tuesday for the same reason.

 

2. Government spending - Everyone is feeling the budget pinch and yet our budget deficit skyrockets year after year - the Repubs paid no attention to the deficit during the Bush years and the Dems pay no attention to it now.

 

All I want to hear out of Washington - Dem or Repub - is total focus on these two issues. If the focus moves on to other issues and their own fantasies about what we want, then we will see a third straight anti-Washington election in 2012. In 2012 the economy needs to be better and the deficit needs to reduce. If not, we will see a Repub president, a Repub Senate and the Dems back in control of the House. Because the voters are going to keep cleaning house in Washington till we get enough people up there that do get it.

 

Once and for all, health care reform was absolutely necessary and any attempts to repeal it will lead to more uproar than the far right ever expects.

Edited November 5, 201015 yr by Voice of Reason

I am in complete agreement. I think HCR is a pretty good compromise in that it's not the program the far left wanted and the far right is still upset that business was reined in at all. It put forward some much needed controls on Insurance companies pretty much right down the middle. Obama and congressional Dem's big mistake was not focusing more on jobs and the economy. It looks like Boehner and McConnell are heading down the wrong path.

I am in complete agreement. I think HCR is a pretty good compromise in that it's not the program the far left wanted and the far right is still upset that business was reined in at all. It put forward some much needed controls on Insurance companies pretty much right down the middle. Obama and congressional Dem's big mistake was not focusing more on jobs and the economy. It looks like Boehner and McConnell are heading down the wrong path.

 

Focusing on fiscal responsibility is a start to focusing on the economy. It is time for the government to quit spending money on social programs that the majority of Americans don't want and can't afford.

Focusing on fiscal responsibility is a start to focusing on the economy. It is time for the government to quit spending money on social programs that the majority of Americans don't want and can't afford.

 

That is a point I hear parroted as a right wing talking point but as Republican Tim Pawlenty point out the other day:

 

If you look at a pie chart of federal outlays, discretionary spending being the red, non-discretionary being the blue. The blue is already over the over the half way mark and it’s growing in double digits. Anybody who comes in here and tells you they’re not going to cut anything other than waste fraud and abuse, they’re not going to touch entitlements — they’re lying to you. If you want to deal with the spending issue, in terms of total federal outlays, you got to deal with interest on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — if you have the time I can walk you through my ideas. But that’s the truth, you got to do entitlement reform, particularly if you’re going to hold defense harmless.

 

I agree with the Governor the question is what programs do Americans not want that we can't afford. Social Security and Medicare? Defense? People want those and as such politicians are scared to death to touch them even though they are dominating spending. I personally think you'd get the most bang for your buck in cutting defense spending and trimming the fat their so to speak. However it's easier to demonize anchor babies and welfare Moms to get people riled up than to upset corporate defense lobbyist.

That is a point I hear parroted as a right wing talking point but as Republican Tim Pawlenty point out the other day:

 

If you look at a pie chart of federal outlays, discretionary spending being the red, non-discretionary being the blue. The blue is already over the over the half way mark and it’s growing in double digits. Anybody who comes in here and tells you they’re not going to cut anything other than waste fraud and abuse, they’re not going to touch entitlements — they’re lying to you. If you want to deal with the spending issue, in terms of total federal outlays, you got to deal with interest on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — if you have the time I can walk you through my ideas. But that’s the truth, you got to do entitlement reform, particularly if you’re going to hold defense harmless.

 

I agree with the Governor the question is what programs do Americans not want that we can't afford. Social Security and Medicare? Defense? People want those and as such politicians are scared to death to touch them even though they are dominating spending. I personally think you'd get the most bang for your buck in cutting defense spending and trimming the fat their so to speak. However it's easier to demonize anchor babies and welfare Moms to get people riled up than to upset corporate defense lobbyist.

 

Especially when many middle class Americans would much rather see their tax dollars spent on defense than on entitlement programs.

Especially when many middle class Americans would much rather see their tax dollars spent on defense than on entitlement programs.

 

My point is the entitlement programs that get people all worked up(welfare, wic, foodstamps, etc) are a fraction of the deficit and if completely eliminated wouldn't even slow it down. The programs that are causing the problems are extremely popular. Family & child welfare programs are only about 2% of the federal budget while defense is 23%. So what gets cut?

My point is the entitlement programs that get people all worked up(welfare, wic, foodstamps, etc) are a fraction of the deficit and if completely eliminated wouldn't even slow it down. The programs that are causing the problems are extremely popular. Family & child welfare programs are only about 2% of the federal budget while defense is 23%. So what gets cut?

I'll take a stab at it. Let's see, which program actually helps protect our citizens? Which program actually participates in doing the Constitutional duty of protecting its citizens?

My #1 is your # 2 , so we start out in agreement.

 

Question : We both agree very strongly that Govt spending ia huge huge deal , Do you honestly feel turning Health Care over to the Fed Govt and creating another gi-normus entitlement program to go along with Medicaid and Medicare is the answer. That we are going to cover 50-70 million more people and somehow it's going to cost LESS than the current cost. I don't care what CBO says, thats a pipe dream and eveyone knows it.

I'll take a stab at it. Let's see, which program actually helps protect our citizens? Which program actually participates in doing the Constitutional duty of protecting its citizens?

 

Ok since we are going to take a smart tone cut all social safety nets out of the budget. No one is left to demonize and the budget deficit still continues to grow. What gets cut now???

If the deficit really is the Republicans' newfound top concern, and the evidence is that the Bush tax cuts contribute to the deficit, then why are so many Republicans bent on extending them?

Ok since we are going to take a smart tone cut all social safety nets out of the budget. No one is left to demonize and the budget deficit still continues to grow. What gets cut now???

No smart tone intended, take it however you like. Cutting social safety nets wouldn't be a bad idea. The idea that the budget deficit grows due to Joe Taxpayer not paying enough in taxes is ludicris.

No smart tone intended, take it however you like. Cutting social safety nets wouldn't be a bad idea. The idea that the budget deficit grows due to Joe Taxpayer not paying enough in taxes is ludicris.

 

I haven't said anything at all about taxes. We are talking about spending cuts and it seems that you like most republicans when presented with the facts is that you are unwilling to say that the popular budet programs are the ones that are going to have to be cut. Especially when as westsider mentions that these same politicians want to reduce revenues even further by extending the Bush tax cuts. In other words they want to continue to be cut tax and spend conservatives that spoiled the budget surplus we had anyway.

#1 Cutting tax rates increases inflow into the Federal Reserve--Do we need to post the numbers again ? and again , and again ?

#2 Did socialist set today as the "take over BGP politics forum day" ?

#1 Cutting tax rates increases inflow into the Federal Reserve--Do we need to post the numbers again ? and again , and again ?

#2 Did socialist set today as the "take over BGP politics forum day" ?

 

Just a friendly word of advice...You're not going to get much engaging discussion by refering to posters who support Obama as socialists...Just an FYI.

#1 Cutting tax rates increases inflow into the Federal Reserve--Do we need to post the numbers again ? and again , and again ?

#2 Did socialist set today as the "take over BGP politics forum day" ?

 

#1 they do not

#2 Obviously you have no idea what a socialist is and have nothing intellegent to add to the conversation.

 

I'm asking to cut spending which is the big "mandate", what is going to be cut especially if you are going to reduce revenue with a tax cut extension?