"Pledge to America" Unveiled by Republicans - What The Next Congress Will Do

[her209]

Releasing such a document or promise might turn out to be a strategic blunder. No, I'm not talking about it's content, haven't even read it yet. But this could shift the debate to the promise(e) and away from the Democrat's performance.

In an election climate like this, I think it best for Repubs to keep the spotlight on the Dem candidate. E.g., Did they vote for Pelosi/Reid? Did they vote for the stimulous bill? Did they vote for cap-n-trade? Did they vote for HC Reform? Keep replaying their remarks predicting how successful the stimulous would be, how it would keep unemployment at 8% or lower etc.

A ballsy, but questionable strategy to release this IMO.

Fern

If I were the DNC, I'd be asking where the unemployment projection graph is for the Republican plan. After all, its all about jobs, amirite?

 

[Fern]

If I were the DNC, I'd be asking where the unemployment projection graph is for the Republican plan. After all, its all about jobs, amirite?

lol. Running on projections (fictional and optimistic numbers) is a helluva lot easier than running on results.

Fern

 

[JEDIYoda]

The only thing guaranteed that they will do should they regain control is further destroy America.

The only thing guaranteed that they will do should they regain control is continue on with the policies of Bush to further destroy America. <-- corrected for accuracy sake!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

No it won't. Did you forget that most people are extremely stupid?

I hope your including yourself......

 

[Craig234]

lol. Running on projections (ficitional and optimistic numbers) is a helluva lot easier than running on results.

Fern

Queue the Bush 2000 campaign about how all his tax cuts will come from the surplus and not increase the deficit.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'll sidestep the discussion of politics and address the actual proposals as I've read or skimmed the bulk of it.

Critical thinkers might raise the following bedrock concern:

Not surprisingly, they propose wide ranging tax cuts. They also advocate spending cuts, but are terribly non-specific about what they intend to cut (the ones they do mention are peanuts). Anyone who cares to google it will see that our three largest spending categories are 1) defense (with supplemental appropriations included), 2) social security, and 3) medicare (the fastest growing of the 3). Nowhere in their proposal do they suggest cutting any of these three. Nowhere are social security or medicare even *mentioned*. But their bottom line, they say, is to "balance the budget." How do you balance the budget by cutting taxes, and doing nothing whatsoever about the three largest spending categories, which combined are about 65&#37; of total government spending. Does this really add up?

Critical thinkers might consider this basically a swindle, a sham. Anyone care to explain why I am wrong?

- wolf

 

[bamacre]

I'll sidestep the discussion of politics and address the actual proposals as I've read or skimmed the bulk of it.

Critical thinkers might raise the following bedrock concern:

Not surprisingly, they propose wide ranging tax cuts. They also advocate spending cuts, but are terribly non-specific about what they intend to cut (the ones they do mention are peanuts). Anyone who cares to google it will see that our three largest spending categories are 1) defense (with supplemental appropriations included), 2) social security, and 3) medicare (the fastest growing of the 3). Nowhere in their proposal do they suggest cutting any of these three. Nowhere are social security or medicare even *mentioned*. But their bottom line, they say, is to "balance the budget." How do you balance the budget by cutting taxes, and doing nothing whatsoever about the three largest spending categories, which combined are about 65% of total government spending. Does this really add up?

Critical thinkers might consider this basically a swindle, a sham. Anyone care to explain why I am wrong?

- wolf

Excellent post.

 

[ElFenix]

I can't be the only person who thinks Republicans think their supporters are stupid. Democrats had essentially no control until a bit less than 4 years ago, and didn't have the total lock on the government that the Republicans enjoyed until less than 2 years ago. That seems like a relatively short time to let go by before demanding to be put in charge again. I guess they're hoping everyone forgets who was steering the ship when we hit the iceberg in the first place.

that total lock on government included 50/50 in the senate for 5 months (51/50 including veep vote) in 2001 and 51/49 democrats for the remainder of the term. and 2003-2005 it was 51/49 repubs, hardly a total lock. they held a 10 seat majority from 2005-2007. but in 2006 (seated 2007) they lost the congress completely so i don't know what total lock that would be.

 

[dank69]

I hope your including yourself......

Did you just call me stupid with improper grammar? Yes, I believe you just did.:wub:

 

[Craig234]

I'll sidestep the discussion of politics and address the actual proposals as I've read or skimmed the bulk of it.

Critical thinkers might raise the following bedrock concern:

Not surprisingly, they propose wide ranging tax cuts. They also advocate spending cuts, but are terribly non-specific about what they intend to cut (the ones they do mention are peanuts). Anyone who cares to google it will see that our three largest spending categories are 1) defense (with supplemental appropriations included), 2) social security, and 3) medicare (the fastest growing of the 3). Nowhere in their proposal do they suggest cutting any of these three. Nowhere are social security or medicare even *mentioned*. But their bottom line, they say, is to "balance the budget." How do you balance the budget by cutting taxes, and doing nothing whatsoever about the three largest spending categories, which combined are about 65&#37; of total government spending. Does this really add up?

Critical thinkers might consider this basically a swindle, a sham. Anyone care to explain why I am wrong?

- wolf

Wolfe, I will explain why you're partly wrong.

This isn't a sham to promise to cut spending, but not do so - at least, not entirely.

The sham is that they DO plan huge cuts to the very things you mention - and are hiding it. They want to dismantle American's 'safety net' - but not say so in the ads.

Watch the following segment that makes this point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

This isn't really anything new - but they've been playing the 'have repealing popular programs as the agenda but hide their support a lot for politics' game since FDR.

For examples, remember that George W. Bush's #1 domestic priority for his second term was to privatize social security; remember that Ronald Reagan started his political career opposing JFK's plans on medicare.

Remember the letter from Eisenhower that there were right-wing 'nuts' who wanted to repeal social security - but were just a fringe at that time with no power, which has changed.

We've had a massive political change in our country since the 70's, with the creation of a radical right media and PR institutions and funding, one result of which is the massive wealth redistribution to the top.

And that wealth redistribution further feeds even more radical movement that direction, in a cycle.

Our brief interlude against that movement - 2006 and 2008 - is less notable for being against it, than for how weakly it is against it, with Obama's top private donor being Goldman Sachs - hardly a new FDR.

There should be a massive move to the left against the harmful massive move to the right - and there isn't. Instead we're on the verge of moving to the right, not the left.

No, the right is relentless in its attempts to get rid of the safety net and it can smell blood. With new energy from the anti-government Koch brothers-funded tea party and such, it's still trying.

While Bush fell short of gaining enough public support, the campaign goes on - and now almost the only thing I hear especially from young people is 'Social Security will just rip me off'.

The race to make the rich the plutocrat class and destroy the middle class is not slowed much, since we have not returned any real liberal government - at least one that can overcome the Republican filibuster yet.

 

[Craig234]

that total lock on government included 50/50 in the senate for 5 months (51/50 including veep vote) in 2001 and 51/49 democrats for the remainder of the term. and 2003-2005 it was 51/49 repubs, hardly a total lock. they held a 10 seat majority from 2005-2007. but in 2006 (seated 2007) they lost the congress completely so i don't know what total lock that would be.

Republicans were a lot more able to get some Democrats to cross over and vote with them, than Democrats are able to get any Republicans to vote with them.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wolfe, I will explain why you're partly wrong.

This isn't a sham to promise to cut spending, but not do so - at least, not entirely.

The sham is that they DO plan huge cuts to the very things you mention - and are hiding it. They want to dismantle American's 'safety net' - but not say so in the ads.

Watch the following segment that makes this point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

No, I don't think so Craig. It's not that I think they don't want to dismantle the entire safety net in their heart of hearts. It's that I think they won't cut SS or Medicare because it's political death to do so, especially among the high turnout elderly voting segment which is a big part of their base.

- wolf

 

[JEDIYoda]

Did you just call me stupid with improper grammar? Yes, I believe you just did.:wub:

yeppers....eye jhust deed....
This is thee enternet not a thesis for a doctorate....

Did I call you stoopid?? not weally.
I asked you to include yourself when calling the majority of americans stoopeed!!

 

[Acanthus]

that total lock on government included 50/50 in the senate for 5 months (51/50 including veep vote) in 2001 and 51/49 democrats for the remainder of the term. and 2003-2005 it was 51/49 repubs, hardly a total lock. they held a 10 seat majority from 2005-2007. but in 2006 (seated 2007) they lost the congress completely so i don't know what total lock that would be.

Republicans vote in lockstep on all issues.

Democrats don't.

You can view that fact 2 ways... either republicans don't think and just vote the way the party / lobby tells them to... or the dems aren't as good at reigning in support.

I view it as the dems having a wider overall group of opinions, and the repubs voting with the GOP leadership.

 

[bamacre]

No, I don't think so Craig. It's not that I think they don't want to dismantle the entire safety net in their heart of hearts. It's that I think they won't cut SS or Medicare because it's political death to do so, especially among the high turnout elderly voting segment which is a big part of their base.

- wolf

Exactly. And beyond that, who was it that passed Medicare D? Republicans of course.

 

[dank69]

yeppers....eye jhust deed....
This is thee enternet not a thesis for a doctorate....

Did I call you stoopid?? not weally.
I asked you to include yourself when calling the majority of americans stoopeed!!

As long as you know the difference between your and you're when it counts. And, no, I don't count myself in that group. I, like everyone else on the internet, am so smart I taught Doogie how to think. He was always a little slow for me.

 

[cwjerome]

I'll sidestep the discussion of politics and address the actual proposals as I've read or skimmed the bulk of it.

Critical thinkers might raise the following bedrock concern:

Not surprisingly, they propose wide ranging tax cuts. They also advocate spending cuts, but are terribly non-specific about what they intend to cut (the ones they do mention are peanuts). Anyone who cares to google it will see that our three largest spending categories are 1) defense (with supplemental appropriations included), 2) social security, and 3) medicare (the fastest growing of the 3). Nowhere in their proposal do they suggest cutting any of these three. Nowhere are social security or medicare even *mentioned*. But their bottom line, they say, is to "balance the budget." How do you balance the budget by cutting taxes, and doing nothing whatsoever about the three largest spending categories, which combined are about 65% of total government spending. Does this really add up?

Critical thinkers might consider this basically a swindle, a sham. Anyone care to explain why I am wrong?

- wolf

I do not think you are wrong, and those that say the Republicans will secretly gut our safety net are not living in reality and are up to their old scare tactics. We recently had a lot of time with Republican control and government services expanded greatly. We love our programs. Attempting to slash medicare and SS is political suicide. Republicans always capitalize on "cut spending" rhetoric yet rarely even slow the growth of spending, much less cut it. Call me cynical, but it seems like just more Republican posturing.

 

[ElFenix]

Republicans were a lot more able to get some Democrats to cross over and vote with them, than Democrats are able to get any Republicans to vote with them.

getting dems to come over does not a total lock make.

Republicans vote in lockstep on all issues.

Democrats don't.

You can view that fact 2 ways... either republicans don't think and just vote the way the party / lobby tells them to... or the dems aren't as good at reigning in support.

I view it as the dems having a wider overall group of opinions, and the repubs voting with the GOP leadership.

i'd really like to see a study of vote splits. i see that claim a lot but i'm not sure how borne out it is in reality.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'll sidestep the discussion of politics and address the actual proposals as I've read or skimmed the bulk of it.

Critical thinkers might raise the following bedrock concern:

Not surprisingly, they propose wide ranging tax cuts. They also advocate spending cuts, but are terribly non-specific about what they intend to cut (the ones they do mention are peanuts). Anyone who cares to google it will see that our three largest spending categories are 1) defense (with supplemental appropriations included), 2) social security, and 3) medicare (the fastest growing of the 3). Nowhere in their proposal do they suggest cutting any of these three. Nowhere are social security or medicare even *mentioned*. But their bottom line, they say, is to "balance the budget." How do you balance the budget by cutting taxes, and doing nothing whatsoever about the three largest spending categories, which combined are about 65&#37; of total government spending. Does this really add up?

Critical thinkers might consider this basically a swindle, a sham. Anyone care to explain why I am wrong?

- wolf

So right on!! Very well said!!!

 

[Craig234]

getting dems to come over does not a total lock make.

It kind of does, when it gives them a majority that can pass its agenda.

 

[Craig234]

I do not think you are wrong, and those that say the Republicans will secretly gut our safety net are not living in reality and are up to their old scare tactics. We recently had a lot of time with Republican control and government services expanded greatly. We love our programs. Attempting to slash medicare and SS is political suicide. Republicans always capitalize on "cut spending" rhetoric yet rarely even slow the growth of spending, much less cut it. Call me cynical, but it seems like just more Republican posturing.

There's plenty of spending Republicans will not only not cut, but expand - look at their Medicare Part D, with big giveaways to their #1 donor industry, big pharma.

But they will cut spending for the class they do not represent - they'll just do it carefully to hide as much as possible.

Like the Bush tax cuts with massive cuts for the rich, but enough tiny cuts for others to hide it under a phrase 'tax cuts for all!'

You need to look at history a bit more - including the Bush campaign to privatize social security as that #1 priority of his second term. Flies in the face of your position.

 

[Turin39789]

I do not think you are wrong, and those that say the Republicans will secretly gut our safety net are not living in reality and are up to their old scare tactics. We recently had a lot of time with Republican control and government services expanded greatly. We love our programs. Attempting to slash medicare and SS is political suicide. Republicans always capitalize on "cut spending" rhetoric yet rarely even slow the growth of spending, much less cut it. Call me cynical, but it seems like just more Republican posturing.

I agree for the most part, but they just need to re-package it as "saving" SS by privatizing it into an entirely unworkable system that is doomed to failure and let time take it's course.

And extending the Bush tax cuts, which they sold as a "temporary" cut(how else would it pass), at a time when a budget surplus was still a recent memory is just daft.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Wolfe, I will explain why you're partly wrong.

This isn't a sham to promise to cut spending, but not do so - at least, not entirely.

The sham is that they DO plan huge cuts to the very things you mention - and are hiding it. They want to dismantle American's 'safety net' - but not say so in the ads.

Watch the following segment that makes this point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

This isn't really anything new - but they've been playing the 'have repealing popular programs as the agenda but hide their support a lot for politics' game since FDR.

For examples, remember that George W. Bush's #1 domestic priority for his second term was to privatize social security; remember that Ronald Reagan started his political career opposing JFK's plans on medicare.

Remember the letter from Eisenhower that there were right-wing 'nuts' who wanted to repeal social security - but were just a fringe at that time with no power, which has changed.

We've had a massive political change in our country since the 70's, with the creation of a radical right media and PR institutions and funding, one result of which is the massive wealth redistribution to the top.

And that wealth redistribution further feeds even more radical movement that direction, in a cycle.

Our brief interlude against that movement - 2006 and 2008 - is less notable for being against it, than for how weakly it is against it, with Obama's top private donor being Goldman Sachs - hardly a new FDR.

There should be a massive move to the left against the harmful massive move to the right - and there isn't. Instead we're on the verge of moving to the right, not the left.

No, the right is relentless in its attempts to get rid of the safety net and it can smell blood. With new energy from the anti-government Koch brothers-funded tea party and such, it's still trying.

While Bush fell short of gaining enough public support, the campaign goes on - and now almost the only thing I hear especially from young people is 'Social Security will just rip me off'.

The race to make the rich the plutocrat class and destroy the middle class is not slowed much, since we have not returned any real liberal government - at least one that can overcome the Republican filibuster yet.

No, I don't think so Craig. It's not that I think they don't want to dismantle the entire safety net in their heart of hearts. It's that I think they won't cut SS or Medicare because it's political death to do so, especially among the high turnout elderly voting segment which is a big part of their base.

- wolf

Dismantling 'entitlement' programs has been the heart (whether openly stated or not) of the Republican philosophy. It came into prominence with Reagan and has now reached a point where they are using 'starve the beast' type tactics.

Someone mentioned Med Part D. Nice giveaway to pharmacy companies. The pharma co's decide what plans are offered to people, which drugs are included in the program, the pharma co's administer the program. Govt is not allowed to negotiate bulk drugs rates with pharma co's. Why do you think the pharma co's were so gung-ho about the program?

That is a perfect example of starving the beast. Make is larger so that it bankrupts itself. Since they could never vote it out of existence this is the other tactic. I'm surprised they haven't tried it with SS & Medicare part A & B yet.


..

 

[Craig234]

No, I don't think so Craig. It's not that I think they don't want to dismantle the entire safety net in their heart of hearts. It's that I think they won't cut SS or Medicare because it's political death to do so, especially among the high turnout elderly voting segment which is a big part of their base.

- wolf

Why do I get the feeling you didn't watch the segment?

What matters isn't how they hurt the elderly, it's the politics.

With changing demographics, the right seems to have planned a massive campaign to recruit younger voters in a 'those old bastards are stealing from you' campaign.

And they have a point. The younger people facing the huge debt and unsustainable entitlements will be an easy sell - and a group of voters to rival the elderly.

The bottom line is that the agenda of the rich to cut these programs - including Wall Street's desire to get its hands on SS - will be compelling for Republicans.

If you watched the clip, you would see Bush on his 'privatize tour' with a huge sign behind him of a social security card with the words 'Protect our Seniors'.

You might remember the Bush irony names for bills, like the 'Clean Air Act' to increase air pollution, etc.

If you were right, he wouldn't have had privatizing social security as his top term goal.

 

[Fern]

I'll sidestep the discussion of politics and address the actual proposals as I've read or skimmed the bulk of it.

Critical thinkers might raise the following bedrock concern:

Not surprisingly, they propose wide ranging tax cuts. They also advocate spending cuts, but are terribly non-specific about what they intend to cut (the ones they do mention are peanuts). Anyone who cares to google it will see that our three largest spending categories are 1) defense (with supplemental appropriations included), 2) social security, and 3) medicare (the fastest growing of the 3). Nowhere in their proposal do they suggest cutting any of these three. Nowhere are social security or medicare even *mentioned*. But their bottom line, they say, is to "balance the budget." How do you balance the budget by cutting taxes, and doing nothing whatsoever about the three largest spending categories, which combined are about 65% of total government spending. Does this really add up?

Critical thinkers might consider this basically a swindle, a sham. Anyone care to explain why I am wrong?

- wolf

I haven't read the thing yet.

I'd say if you want to see how feasible it is, look at our federal budget but strip out the huge one-time items such as the bailouts and the stimulous plan and see what we've got.

I'm too lazy to rework 2009 etc, so I'll use the 2006 & 2007 budgets :

Both have total Revenue of about $2.5 trillion.
Both show total Expenditures of about $2.7

Both show a deficit of about $250 billion (due to roundng above my math doesn't quite add up, yet both years do come in at about this deficit amount). BTW: This is slightly less than the amount the gov gives for foreign aid which in 2007 & 2008 was about $275 billion.

That's about 9%. I.e., a budget cut of 9% would balance it. That, in and of itself, is a do-able number.

But those are pre-recession numbers, I don't see how it's really do-able, or desirable, in a recession (But wait! That's over, right? ). Also, any tax cuts would have to factored in, and we'd need to have them scored before having an idea of their impact.

These numbers come from Wiki, btw.

Also, it's not clear if the cost of Iraq & Afganistan are included. If not, the CBO estimated those at $115 billion for 2007. So if not included in the above amounts our 9% number would increase to about 14%. Iraq war costs may be significantly less now as it's wound down. They need to wind down Afganistan, and the repubs could probably get away with it without much political problems.

So, while it may not be easy I think it's do-able. But while we're in a recession I'd rather they just freeze spending and not cut it.

Fern