Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ryan Budget Gets 40 Votes in Senate, Obama Budget Gets 0
The Weekly Standard ^ | May 25, 2011 | JOHN MCCORMACK

Posted on 05/25/2011 4:23:23 PM PDT by mdittmar

That big fat zero is not a typo.

Not a single U.S. senator voted in favor of President Obama's budget proposal. Meanwhile, five members of GOP caucus voted against Ryan budget: moderates Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, independent Lisa Murkowski (Ak.), and staunch libertarian Rand Paul (Ky.). So all of the swing state Republican senators sided with Ryan.

Apparently, the Senate Democrats think if they don't support anything they can't be demagogued in the same way they're demagoguing Ryan's plan. Harry Reid has dropped the phrasing that Republicans would end Medicare "as we know it," in favor of a less subtle statement on the Senate floor: "The Republican plan would kill Medicare."

Democrats can only duck the issue for so long, right? 

On a related note: 

"I do think that the Republican Party right now hasn't sort of figured out what it's for," Obama said in a White House interview [in 2009] with The Courier-Journal and reporters from five other newspapers. "And so as a proxy, they've just decided 'we're going to be against whatever the other side is for.' That's not what's needed in an economic crisis."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Alaska; US: Arkansas; US: Illinois; US: Kentucky; US: Maine; US: Massachusetts; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: arkansas; brown; budget; collins; congress; illinois; kentucky; maine; massachusetts; murkowski; obama; randpaul; snowe; wisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: PapaNew

Thanks, fixed it for us! :’)


21 posted on 05/25/2011 5:35:39 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brett11
No. The issue isn't just "balancing the budget" but balancing a RESPONSIBLE and SENSIBLE budget. Because of government spending, the current "budget" is insane.

"Balancing the budget" at this point would require tax increases that would buckle our economy and send us into an economic death-spiraling flameout. You must go after the problem and the problem is GOVERNMENT SPENDING. If you want a healthy economy, CUT TAXES and CUT government spending even more.

Government created the problem with Bush's bloated government policy. Obama injected that policy with psychotic steroids call "stimulus." Then they want to "balance the budget" by raising taxes. Nobody would have any money, we'd be in a full blown depression, and the Leftists socialist dream will be complete: economic equality for all - everybody is poor except of course the ruling elite.

First cut spending. Then cut taxes. Then cut spending more. THAT's how you recover economically and get to a balanced and RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE budget

22 posted on 05/25/2011 5:51:03 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

“They should offer up the bill again without medicare reform and this time let the public know that wwhen it does go bust the republicans at least tried to save whereas you now have nothing thanks to the democrats.”

I agree, but it’s not “it” going bust, it’s the entire US government, once the idiot creditors accept the FACT that we will NEVER pay back our debts.

We will have to go broke - of that I’m 100% convinced - there simply is not enough people willing to stand up to the Seniors that want their money whether the US is dead or alive.


23 posted on 05/25/2011 6:02:59 PM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

So does that mean that you support raising the debt ceiling?


24 posted on 05/25/2011 6:18:03 PM PDT by Brett11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Brown, Collins and Snowe are liberals. All three belong in the Democratic Party.

Murkowski is a jackass and Rand Paul follows in his Father's footsteps.

25 posted on 05/25/2011 6:21:00 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett11

I think it’s 25. Ryan gets a bit vague in the out years. Going through it detail, my guess is that he assumes people die out of SS and Medicare to the point that the costs come down. In the mean time, he proposes few spending cuts.

This is unlike Rand who has a real budget similar to the Republican study Committee’s.

A lot of Conservatives have been suckered in to supporting Ryan’s Republican budget.


26 posted on 05/25/2011 6:27:08 PM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Ryan’s budget does not cut after the first year.

There are two other games in town. First is Rand Paul’s budget in the Senate and the second is by the Republican Study Committee in the House.


27 posted on 05/25/2011 6:38:29 PM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

I agree but do block grant medicaid to the States with the intention of eventually ending all federal funding to them programs all together.


28 posted on 05/25/2011 11:01:53 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

MY point is that the demons won’t go on the hook all by themselves, they’re nothing but a bunch of gutless chits. The pub need to point this out to the people. BO thriugh BOcare is going to take 500B from medicare and the pubs at least most of them are saying nothing.


29 posted on 05/26/2011 1:09:42 AM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brett11
So does that mean that you support raising the debt ceiling?

If that's temporarily what it's going to take to get to the results I've mapped out. Sometimes an alcoholic has to go through cold turkey, experiencing more severe symptoms on his way to recovery. Fixing the economy now will almost certainly be similar to the early 80's when Reagan's measures caused the economy to get temporarily worse before it roared back with record-setting 25-year robust health and growth.

30 posted on 05/26/2011 6:28:04 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MontaniSemperLiberi
Ryan's dealing with a bunch of idiots and a clueless POTUS who won't pass the kind of real radical reform needed. Take it a step at a time like the Leftists have done to us for the past 50+ years. Take what you can get now, get a POTUS with half a brain, and then put the axe to the tree of government spending and taxes.
31 posted on 05/26/2011 6:33:32 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

In three years the Debt to GDP ratio will be over 90%. Historically economies start to slow as the debt increases exponentially. In six years the debt goes up geometrically. At that time, we go under.

We don’t have 25 years and can’t count on the rate of growth Ryan assumes in his projections.

Ryan’s plan is just enough to let him say “we tried” on the Sunday morning shows.


32 posted on 05/26/2011 3:58:39 PM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
What's needed is a recognition of a few simple principles. First of all, if a state or locality would rather have some amount of cash than some construction project, that's a pretty good sign that the value of the project to the people of the state or locality is less than the cash they'd prefer in its stead. Unless the project has substantial value to people outside the state or locality, spending federal dollars to entice a locality to build it would be a waste of money.

Secondly, some people will invest their money in such a way as to generate wealth; others will spend their money in ways which destroy wealth. The more wealth is in the hands of people who will use it to generate more wealth, the more wealth will be created. Taxing such people will effectively destroy wealth.

Thirdly, any dollar of wealth which is borrowed by the government is a dollar of wealth which is unavailable for private investment. Generally, private investment generates wealth. In many cases, government borrowing is used to fund programs whose only function is to generate further demand.

People need to wake up to the fact that institutionalized covetousness is not virtuous. I wish Christians who might be inclined to vote Democrat could be made to realize that the whole leftist platform is based upon violation of the Tenth Commandment.

33 posted on 05/29/2011 7:18:50 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson