Republicans: we are now against spending cuts, they're unpopular and won't work

[Blue3]

Republicans admit spending cuts won't happen, both because they're both unpopular and because they won't balance the budget




https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mick-mulvaney-appetite-spending-reductions-low-215829610.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[KingSweden]

Lol what a cuck

[Hindsight was 2020]

The base never was against spending. The stuff about spending was just dog whistles for "dems spend our tax dollars on poor minorities in the inner city"

[dead0man]

First they didn't hate Russians, then they went protectionist...now they're against spending cuts.  I suspect they'll be pro-union by spring.

[fluffypanther19]

The base never was against spending. The stuff about spending was just dog whistles for "dems spend our tax dollars on poor minorities in the inner city"

[IceSpear]

So where are all the "I vote Republican because I'm a sensible American concerned about fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and the deficit " people now?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Governing is a lot harder than opposing, episode 46.

[Virginiá]

Just watch how fast this attitude changes when Democrats take the federal government back (whenever that might be). Suddenly there will be no money for anything, and brutal austerity is the only way to go.

After all, the unwritten rule in conservatives eyes is that only they get to "govern" (or try, right?), and those temporary periods of time where Republicans are booted out are only when voters get confused about how the way things are. Obviously then it is the duty of Congressional Republicans to obstruct until they can claw back their position as the only rightful rulers of America.

[mvd10]

So where are all the "I vote Republican because I'm a sensible American concerned about fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and the deficit " people now?

In the Netherlands I'm afraid

Anyway, I never really supported the GOP's deficit alarmism and brutal austerity proposals anyway, but it was a hell of a lot better than their apparent new course (massive tax cuts without any offsetting spending cuts/base-broadening). Slashing food stamps or medicaid never really was necessary, social security and medicare are the main "culprits", so it's best to slow down spending on these programs (by raising the retirement age, reducing social security benefits for higher-earners and seriously looking at cutting medicare spending).

Republicans did manage to slash spending on the state level though. The US passed a lot more austerity than people think, it's just that it were the (predominantly Republican) state governments pushing for austerity instead of the federal government (which is a lot more visible I suppose).

[ProudModerate2]

But I'm sure The House will push for massive (equal) spending cuts, if they are to approve an increase in the Debt Ceiling .... right ?

[Mr. Reactionary]

First they didn't hate Russians, then they went protectionist...now they're against spending cuts.  I suspect they'll be pro-union by spring.

We might as well just call them Democrats at this point.

[OneJ]

Is there any evidence that Republican voters supported spending cuts anyway?

[Nyvin]

Is there any evidence that Republican voters supported spending cuts anyway?

Not the kind of spending cuts that would even remotely come close to balancing the budget.

[Frodo]

Is there any evidence that Republican voters supported spending cuts anyway?

Only the ones that hurt minorities the most. 

[Indy Texas]

So where are all the "I vote Republican because I'm a sensible American concerned about fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and the deficit " people now?

In the Netherlands I'm afraid

Anyway, I never really supported the GOP's deficit alarmism and brutal austerity proposals anyway, but it was a hell of a lot better than their apparent new course (massive tax cuts without any offsetting spending cuts/base-broadening). Slashing food stamps or medicaid never really was necessary, social security and medicare are the main "culprits", so it's best to slow down spending on these programs (by raising the retirement age, reducing social security benefits for higher-earners and seriously looking at cutting medicare spending).

Republicans did manage to slash spending on the state level though. The US passed a lot more austerity than people think, it's just that it were the (predominantly Republican) state governments pushing for austerity instead of the federal government (which is a lot more visible I suppose).

Yes, and that's part of the reason that the post-2009 recovery was so slow and all those Midwest states that were immiserated by Republicans beginning in 2010 voted for Trump.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

They're only in favour of spending cuts when they can force them on a Democratic administration which will take the political hit

[RINO Tom]

So where are all the "I vote Republican because I'm a sensible American concerned about fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and the deficit " people now?

Still here, about 90% Republican learners, too.  The fact is, most people of tons of ideologies love their government entitlements.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Ridiculous.... I'm a Libertarian now

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First they didn't hate Russians, then they went protectionist...now they're against spending cuts.  I suspect they'll be pro-union by spring.

Remember Janus will likely be decided in the spring by a 5-4 vote against the public sector unions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The only reason you had a small gov't, tea party wave in the first place was because the bailouts gave libertarians the chance to become populists by running against Wall Street, creating the surge for candidates like Toomey and Rand Paul to win states that are not small gov't by any means.


Trump also didn't get elected by promising to cut spending. He did the exact opposite, ran to center on healthcare, called for massive infrastructure spending and opposed cuts to entitlement programs.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So where are all the "I vote Republican because I'm a sensible American concerned about fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and the deficit " people now?

Still here, about 90% Republican learners, too.  The fact is, most people of tons of ideologies love their government entitlements.

cutting non-defense discretionary programs get you no where though and frankly Republicans like to believe there is this massive amount of waste and duplication that if they just magically erase then they will get spending under control.

If you really want to get spending under control you have to do 3 very basic things.

1. Across the gov't procurement reform, from letting Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices to competitive bidding on contracts in the Pentagon. Of course that pinches Republican donors in the Pharma and defense contractor industries.

2. Entitlement Reform - Republicans need to come to reality that that true driver of Medicare costs is the denial of care earlier in life, and the aging population. If you want to get Medicare under control, the first thing you need to do is ensure access to preventative care throughout the life span. Republicans too often love to cut now, in exchange for double the amount in higher spending later through Medicare. And yes I support block granting Medicaid and Obamacare, but at much higher funding levels then Graham-Cassidy. We have had back door Universal Healthcare via the emergency room for decades and it is time Republicans acknowledge it, bring it to the front door and quit trying to use poverty as a substitute for gov't death panels to bring down costs. Instead they should try to get as many insured as possible with market/state based insurers, paid for with block grants to the states or a sliding scale subsidy, and then work on reforming delivery and other reforms that will bring costs under control without killing people.

3. Stop using the tax code to hide spending behind of shield of "Oh I am not spending money, I am just returning your money too you". This attitude of take two tax credits and call me in the morning has riddled the code with ridiculous complexity, lowered revenues, and added a hidden tax to the tune of $500 billion dollars in tax code compliance costs, which acts as a regressive tax on small business, making it harder for them to compete with larger firms. Republicans should simplify the tax code, remove all the special loopholes and bring down the rates. Then they should apply fees and/or taxes to hedgefunds and financial transactions by big firms to fund/incentivize loans to small business by local and community banks and bring down the deficit/debt.

Republicans talk about all this but often times pull a bait and switch, like on financial regulations, where Republicans should work to restore market competition, not foster a regulatory environment that consolidates more banks into larger too big to fail firms that will leave tax payers on the hook with another bailout down the road.

Glass-Steagall is a fiscally conservative proposal when you account for the cost of the bailout. Taxing financial transactions/hedge funds is a fiscally conservative proposal when you account for the lost revenues of the Great Recession and expenses it generated.

[Shadows]

So where are all the "I vote Republican because I'm a sensible American concerned about fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and the deficit " people now?

Still here, about 90% Republican learners, too.  The fact is, most people of tons of ideologies love their government entitlements.

cutting non-defense discretionary programs get you no where though and frankly Republicans like to believe there is this massive amount of waste and duplication that if they just magically erase then they will get spending under control.

If you really want to get spending under control you have to do 3 very basic things.

1. Across the gov't procurement reform, from letting Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices to competitive bidding on contracts in the Pentagon. Of course that pinches Republican donors in the Pharma and defense contractor industries.

2. Entitlement Reform - Republicans need to come to reality that that true driver of Medicare costs is the denial of care earlier in life, and the aging population. If you want to get Medicare under control, the first thing you need to do is ensure access to preventative care throughout the life span. Republicans too often love to cut now, in exchange for double the amount in higher spending later through Medicare. And yes I support block granting Medicaid and Obamacare, but at much higher funding levels then Graham-Cassidy. We have had back door Universal Healthcare via the emergency room for decades and it is time Republicans acknowledge it, bring it to the front door and quit trying to use poverty as a substitute for gov't death panels to bring down costs. Instead they should try to get as many insured as possible with market/state based insurers, paid for with block grants to the states or a sliding scale subsidy, and then work on reforming delivery and other reforms that will bring costs under control without killing people.

3. Stop using the tax code to hide spending behind of shield of "Oh I am not spending money, I am just returning your money too you". This attitude of take two tax credits and call me in the morning has riddled the code with ridiculous complexity, lowered revenues, and added a hidden tax to the tune of $500 billion dollars in tax code compliance costs, which acts as a regressive tax on small business, making it harder for them to compete with larger firms. Republicans should simplify the tax code, remove all the special loopholes and bring down the rates. Then they should apply fees and/or taxes to hedgefunds and financial transactions by big firms to fund/incentivize loans to small business by local and community banks and bring down the deficit/debt.

Republicans talk about all this but often times pull a bait and switch, like on financial regulations, where Republicans should work to restore market competition, not foster a regulatory environment that consolidates more banks into larger too big to fail firms that will leave tax payers on the hook with another bailout down the road.

Glass-Steagall is a fiscally conservative proposal when you account for the cost of the bailout. Taxing financial transactions/hedge funds is a fiscally conservative proposal when you account for the lost revenues of the Great Recession and expenses it generated.

Bailouts are surely against Capitalism. The free market party can't support privatizing profits & socializing losses, can it? Does a small business owner in the Rust Belt get a bailout when his firm fails? Capitalism was about ineffective firms dying. Why is a Free Market solution of "Free Trade of Brand Name Medicinal products" Or "Drug Imports" opposed by most Republicans ? How can you import fish, vegetables but not import brand name drugs which developed nations produce?

That is not a free market, conservative, fiscally responsible party. That is crony capitalism & there is an unhealthy nexus between campaign donors & politicians with elected leaders doing the bidding of donors. No Conservative party anywhere in the world denies Climate Change. The only country not to support the Paris Deal is Syria. That is the state of the current Republican party.

[Sir Mohamed]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's an unfortunate truth that while cutting government spending, when phrased in the most general terms, polls very well, specific and significant spending cuts always poll terribly because everything has a large constituency. We won't get real spending cuts in the areas where we need them (defense and entitlements) at the federal level until politicians come together and stop caring about the next election and instead focus 100% of their attention on balancing our budget. And unfortunately, I don't think that happens anytime soon, regardless of who succeeds Trump.

[Nyvin]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

I guess that's the positive of having a TV Star elected president.    Unfortunately in the case of Trump he's running the White House staff a little to similarly to The Apprentice.