Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  

The Republican "Budget"

Recommended Posts

I'm going to pause from kissing the president's BUTT for a few minutes to ridicule the Republicans. Who's with me?


"Two nights ago the president said, 'We haven't seen a budget yet out of Republicans.' Well, it's just not true because -- Here it is, Mr. President," said House Minority leader Rep. John Boehner, as he held up a booklet that he said was a "blueprint for where we're going."



The OFFICIAL Republican Road to Recovery


Not so much a budget as is it a campaign document that doesn't make any sense.





This is what you call a "graphic organizer," except it really doesn't organize anything, just connects one unrelated thing to the next with a few lines.



But look, a chart! With numbers!




Laugh with me at the accuracy of Republican deficits.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, that's right there on page 17...along with this gem:




I'm going to use what I've learned through years of studying visual presentations to analyze this information:

  • Fannie (a.k.a. the Federal National Mortgage Association, but let's never ever call it that) = bad.
  • Freddie (a.k.a. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, ditto) = bad.
  • Bailouts = bad.
  • Recovery = good.
  • Little kids = cute.
  • Moms = blonde.
  • Dads = gay.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican budget is just more of the same of the the philiosophy that has ruined our economy with bubbles for the last 30 years, cut the taxes at the top, cut spending everywhere possible, free trade, deregulate everything. Basically, get the wealthy more wealthy so the GDP numbers look great, claim how awesome the economy is even though wages for the working class are dropping, this country is exporting more jobs, etc etc. AKA - NO NEW IDEAS.


I love when I watch conservative pundits talking about "you people need to get angry and start a revolution" I mean, I am thinking to myself, umm you dipshit, the country just elected an african-american president, whose rhetoric on the issues is way to the left of anything we've heard in the last thirty years, not to mention two years ago we the democrats a majority in the house and senate. I think the people DID GET ANGRY and they DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.


It's as if the pundits on FOX NEWS forgot that we just had an election where the vast majority of people elected people into this government that disagree with their politics, issues, and economic philiosophy.


Wake the fuck up asshole(s)......*staring in Hannity and Beck's direction*

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised to see Paul Ryan get himself wrapped up in this. He seems to be trying very hard to avoid the GOP retard fray so he's not seen as yet another joke in 2012/16.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
After getting blasted last week for presenting a budget plan light on details, House Republicans yesterday unveiled a more complete proposal that would cut taxes for businesses and the wealthy, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly...


...Annual deficits also would be slightly lower than under the revised budget plans that emerged last week from the House and Senate budget committees. The revised Democratic proposals would require the nation to borrow about $4 trillion over the next five years, compared with $3.1 trillion in new borrowing under the GOP alternative.




"Pick our plan that not only does nothing for the economy, but also actively fucks people over, because it costs 23% less!"







Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats propose nearly $1 trillion in new spending on

health care reform as a mere “down payment” for

additional spending to come. The prime focus of their

agenda is the establishment of a government-run health

insurance plan, designed to “compete” against private

health insurance.


Uh, okay.


Already, states and the federal government pay nearly

However, independent analysis confirms that the

government-run “option” would quickly become a de

facto single-payer system. Actuaries at the Lewin Group

estimated that nearly three in four Americans—119

million individuals—with employer-sponsored health

insurance would lose their current coverage.


Ooh, lowering business costs that allow for greater flexibility in pricing!



individuals would lose their coverage not because they

made a voluntary choice to accept the government plan,

but because their employers would save billions of dollars

by ending their current coverage and dumping their

employees into the government-run plan.


They'll always have the individual market if they need it.


Over time, the Democrat plan would result in a

government-run health system. Those who like the health

insurance they have now likely will not be able to keep it

because their employers will stop providing coverage.


Or they could, you know, buy individual coverage. Which was what the Republicans told the uninsured until UHC started polling well.


In a government-run health care system, bureaucrats

would exercise increasing control over all health care

decision-making and would resort to rationing of care as

the sole means to control skyrocketing costs.


Or they could,buy private insurance individually to get care faster or get care approved when the government plan says no (because you know it sometimes will.)


Ian Dobbin, a patient in Yorkshire, England, who

faced a similar dilemma because a government

bureaucrat refused to approve his life-saving cancer

treatment. year, excluding fraudulent activity never detected.


Gosh, if only the UK had a private system complimenting the public care to provide treatments the taxpayer run system doesn't want to afford.


Sounds like the Democrats have a great plan, thanks Republicans for helping me figure this out!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Republican Senators killed funding for flu pandemic control

April 27, 1:43 PM ·


$870 million in money to improve the Center for Disease Control's ability to handle a possible flu pandemic was removed from the economic stimulus bill Congress passed in February, largely at the behest of Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Collins and Specter argued that the funding did not belong in the economic recovery package, although the $870 million figure would have accounted for roughly 1.1% of the final bill's total value. Less than 3 months later, health officials fear that the appearance of swine flu in Mexico, which has traveled to New York City and other areas of the United States, could set off a long feared flu pandemic the US healthcare system is not prepared to handle.

Collins and Specter, along with Sen. Ben Nelso (D-NE) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), were at the core of a group of "moderate" Senators arguing that the stimulus bill was too large, and sought out to slash funding for various programs before passage of the final bill. Sen. Specter argued that funding pandemic control through the emergency supplemental package would be "inappropriate," and that the money should be appropriated via the normal budget process. Assuming that no emergency funds are provided this year, this would likely mean funds would be approiated early in 2010 in an omnibus appropriations package.




I'm writing my Congressman and asking for legislation authorizing a "National Punch A Republican Day."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this