Ezra Klein’s on-line column this morning worries me more — will any Republican stand up for America?
No, I don’t mean lip service, I don’t mean flag lapel pins. I mean, will any Republican stand up for the policies we need to steer through the shoals of economic woe we face in the next 60 months?
The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate wasn’t when Michele Bachmann cooly stuck a knife between Tim Pawlenty’s ribs, or when Rick Santorum plaintively begged for more airtime, or when Mitt Romney easily slipped past questions about his record on health-care reform. It was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.
Primary debates are usually watched for what they say about the candidates, but they’re generally important for what they say about the party. This one was no different. With the notable exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, the candidates didn’t disagree over policy. They disagreed over fealty to policy.
Bachmann didn’t attack Pawlenty’s policy proposals. She attacked him for past statements suggesting he might believe in other policy proposals, like the individual mandate and cap-and-trade. Pawlenty’s assault on Romney took the same form. This debate wasn’t about what policies the candidates believed in. That was largely a given. This debate was about which of the candidates believed in those policies the most.
The best policy in this debate wasn’t the policy most likely to work, or the policy most likely to pass. It was the most orthodox policy. The policy least sullied by compromise. A world in which the GOP will not agree to deficit reduction with a 10:1 split between spending cuts and tax increases is a world where entitlement reform can’t happen. It’s a world where the “supercommittee” fails and the trigger is pulled, and thus a world in which $1 out of every $2 in cuts comes from the Pentagon. It’s not a world that fits what many in the GOP consider ideal policy. But it is a world in which none in the GOP need to traverse the treacherous politics of compromise.
Policies discussed weren’t mainline, capitalist economic policies, either. They’re so far out in left field they can’t even see the pitcher’s mound from where they are. Plus, they’re looking the wrong way.
Over and over again, [Michelle] Bachmann misstated basic facts. She said that Tim Pawlenty “implemented” cap-and-trade in Minnesota. He did no such thing. She said “we just heard from Standard Poor’s,” and “when they dropped our credit rating what they said was we don’t have an ability to repay our debt.” Simply not true.
S&P has never questioned our ability to repay our debt. That’s why we remain AA+. They have questioned whether political brinksmanship will stop us from paying our debt. The downgrade “was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling,” said John Chambers, head of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee. That is to say, it was motivated by political brinksmanship from the likes of, well, Michele Bachmann.
It’s fitting that the candidate best able to resist compromise is the candidate who seems least able to correctly explain the policies at issue and the choices we face. It’s a lot easier to take a hard line if you don’t understand the consequences of your actions, and a lot simpler to belt out applause lines if you’re not slowed down by the messy complexities of the issues. But where Bachmann is leading, the other candidates are following. Mitt Romney knows perfectly well that a deal with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases is a great deal for conservatives. What he probably doesn’t know is how he’s going to explain why he pretended otherwise when he was vying for the nomination.
Winners in the debate? Unclear. Losers? You, me, and every American.
Can any Republican explain where in the world they got these nightmare economic policies? Are they being made up on the spot?
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Mike said:
Or too much money. The Iowa Republican Party charges a $30 poll tax to vote in the straw poll, making sure that no poor people get a say in that Republican Party pageant.
Is there a stronger argument for taxing the rich more?
LikeLike
Steve, you’re confusing Real Climate with Real Science.
LikeLike
Um, real scientists and climatologists do not think realclimate is accurate or reliable. They view it as pap for the freakazoids who think that clmate change is occurring simply because this year’s temperature, rainfall, etc., is different than last year’s.
LikeLike
I just think that Michele Bachmann’s victory in the straw polls following this indicates that the true believers, the activists in rural Iowa have too much power in this country to drive the selection of the next Chief.
Her victory will get her more campaign money, so that come February she will be the most likely Iowa winner. I may move to a country with a parliamentary system and shorter election seasons.
LikeLike
Maybe the Republicans really do have a plan after all…
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217
LikeLike
Ed_According to the Tea Party Bible If you can’t take care of yourself then your neighbors are supposed to walk past you like this…..
_ and they always stop reading there and close the book.
It’s of no account what happens to you. We have millions of people who call themselves “Christians” in the U.S. and yet there are still at least a million homeless; many laying in the streets. It’s of no account to the vast majority of those Christians what happens to their neighbors as long as they don’t have to make an effort.
There’s no way in hell they care about somebody else losing their retirement or pension.
LikeLike
Social Security ceases to be an issue when almost everyone has a good pension — which requires companies to make pension programs and employ people for 30 or 40 years of contributions into the system.
Medicaid ceases to be an issue when unemployment hits about 3%, and everyone who needs a job, gets one, with benefits.
Medicare ceases to be a problem when retirement programs carry health care benefits like they used to.
“Entitlement programs” cease to be at issue when they are not needed. The problem is that too many people think the way to reduce entitlement program is to squeeze the poor and middle class, instead of creating good education for children and good jobs for parents and other adults.
Where do they stop? Not soon enough, and too far out. Republican cutting of jobs, in Wisconsin, Texas, New York, Washington, California, Missouri, and every other state, only increases the need for entitlements.
When will the Tea Party get a clue? Entitlements will run a ways past that.
LikeLike
“It’s funny how G and Rational and Real only speak in facts, and Pangolin speaks in theories. Typical horses%$t.”_bennetalbatross81
Please allow only one of your personalities access to the keyboard at a time.
LikeLike
“This is futile to argue with these peons. At the end of the day, money makes the world turn whether you like it or not so get you some.”
Just like it is futile to argue with you peons. Money is an imaginary concept that we believe in like infinity and pi, or like your realism and rationality. If you don’t believe, then explain how a barter system works. No money, just goods. Perhaps you meant to say, “goods make the world turn,” then I would be inclined to agree with you on a certain level.
It’s funny how G and Rational and Real only speak in facts, and Pangolin speaks in theories. Typical horses%$t.
LikeLike
You kids need to go over to 4chan. There’s porn and gore over there; you’ll like that.
LikeLike
Are you sockpuppets going to list any links to any sources? Or are you just trolls?
Every link to a paper or data source on RealClimate refers to a peer reviewed journal article or raw data from reliable, audited sources.
Are you claiming that the side effects attributed to Accutane, Vioxx and Celebrex aren’t valid? These are drugs that were release based upon a very small number of studies.
Climate Change science is based upon literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
Cite your FACTS or you’re trolls. Typists. Meatpuppets for corporate masters.
LikeLike
Rational, I’d roll over there with you, but I don’t feel safe enough to leave my house. You know, with the copious amounts viruses and the dangerous medicine now days.
I’d go out with you tomorrow, but unfortunately I will be stuck at home counting all the money I made off the of crack addicts and minorities.
Sunday is completely full. My racist buddies and I are having a clan rally, so you are more than welcome to join.
Then the rest of the week I just count money and argue with people on blogs.
LikeLike
Let’s roll over to Pangolin’s modest, yet adequate apartment. I hear the booze is free and the ladies looking for coitus are plentiful.
LikeLike
Yeah my work day of being a greedy fat cat is over. Let’s go piss on poor people and burn babies.
LikeLike
This is futile to argue with these peons. At the end of the day, money makes the world turn whether you like it or not so get you some.
LikeLike
“At the same time the FDA has approved whole classes of drugs that have turned out to be fatal. If Viox and Celebrex don’t ring any bells here’s site that lists drugs with harmful or fatal side effects.”
What is your point? That some drugs can be fatal. No one is disagreeing with you on that. What does that have to do with your incoherent rambling about non related issues that you claim to be facts?
LikeLike
Thanks for those outstanding sources Pangolin!
Now if only wall street execs and fund managers would start a site to promote their expert testimony that we need big banks.
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.
—Translation: Please don’t take away our funding, we promise we’re onto something breathtaking here if you just give us more time and money!
LikeLike
My point was that you are not listing facts, but opinions. Comprehensive research does not always evolve into fact.
Yeah I did the same thing you did, trying to make a point. Just because a study was done, does not make it fact. I was giving you an alternative approach to the same subject.
And of course you don’t think republicans are good with facts, because you have not come to understand the difference between facts and opinions. Everything you listed was an opinion.
Haha, I’m not racist bro, I can assure you of that.
LikeLike
_G
This is pure Stormfront. No actual link or cite to the actual study. An implication that prevalence of a disease in certain populations is caused by race (note they don’t use genetics) rather than any co-factor. No quote of the abstract that can be verified.
You racist bro.
LikeLike
Where are YOUR sources G? Solid sources.
You demanded sources and then marched off without providing your own. You’re a fraud.
Just on Climate Change. RealClimate provides a comprehensive listing of data and papers on climate change which amounts to thousands of papers.
At the same time the FDA has approved whole classes of drugs that have turned out to be fatal. If Viox and Celebrex don’t ring any bells here’s site that lists drugs with harmful or fatal side effects.
FACTS do not matter to conservatives.
LikeLike
Pangolin do you have kids?
If so, do you ever say “Do this, and you will get that?” Isn’t that the same as asking people to take responsibility and work for what they want?
If not, then disregard and please refrain from bringing more people into this world born with their hands cupped and outstretched.
LikeLike
Alright panda. This is typical liberal babble. You listed facts. I proved them to not be facts, but rather opinion. Then you claim that I am racist. That seems to be the liberal go-to move when someone disagrees with them.
I am a racist because I know the difference between fact and opinion? Interesting theory.
LikeLike
Unmoderated comment boards on the net turn into Stormfront because conservative minded individuals simply do not care about facts and quickly degrade to racism.
People work for other motivations than simple food and housing. Forcing people to work for substance wages or suffer hunger and homelessness is tripping down the primrose path to barbed wire concentration camps with “Work Makes You Free” over the gates.
LikeLike
You seem to have an “irrational and unreal” outlook on humanity.
It’s my opinion, neither more irrational or unreal than I would say yours is.
London is currently witnessing how many would want that lifestlye vs those who would give it up. Seems to be going over smoothly.
LikeLike
“When there’s a will, there’s a way” they say……..
but sometimes, when there’s a way, there’s a will
LikeLike
Why do I need to cite anything? Let’s stick to the topic of you listing facts, in which, not a single one was a fact?
Also, I have worked for Habitat for Humanity.
LikeLike
Perhaps being passionate about their work is what led the person to become wealthy and make that 2 or 3 million in the first place. Seeing as the “wealthy” are a minority in the population, I don’t think you can claim the rest of society would work even if they didn’t have to by simply extrapolating the behavior of the wealthy person onto the middle/lower class.
I did Meals-on-Wheels today, suck it.
LikeLike
“Sign me up for Pangolin’s agenda to house and provide for the homeless! I’ll take a modest apt and free alcoholic bevies all day! Make sure to put me in one of the areas where you give me free healthcare too!
Wait….what happens when the majority of the population chooses this option given the foreseeable unintended consequences it would cause? Who will provide the subsidized housing for millions out of the goodness of their heart? Pangolin, is that you I hear volunteering?”
You seem to have an “irrational and unreal” outlook on humanity. I doubt that “the majority” of the population will give up on all their dreams to become addicts. Being an addict is way better than actually having a normal life.
LikeLike
G. Then goes on to prattle without providing his own sources, valid or otherwise while I was pulling links. That’s not exactly cricket. It’s Gish Galloping.
He actually throws in a little unattributed racism in there for good measure. He even pulls up a sockpuppet to argue with housing the homeless.
Hey sockpuppet; why do wealthy people go back to work after they’ve made the first two or three million? They could certainly buy a passel of apartments and sit back and sponge off the rents. Actually, why does anybody work in those socialist welfare states? Couldn’t they just live off the dole?
It turns out there are other motivations. Shocking.
Oh, I’ve worked on a Habitat for Humanity build; have you?
LikeLike
“Housing the homeless in modest but adequate studio apartments is CHEAPER for overall government expenses in policing and medical care than leaving them on the street. Even if they spend all their time drunk/stoned. Also giving clean alcoholic beverages to alcoholics is cheaper (medical cost reductions) than forcing them to scrounge for whatever they can find. (mouthwash, methanol)”
Is that a fact? Have there been any studies on how an entire society being drunk would function? You can’t claim these are facts when you don’t have any knowledge of the possible repercussions.
So out of all your “facts” almost every one was your interpretation of someone’s theory, also known as an opinion. Which, surprisingly enough turns out to be the opposite of a fact.
LikeLike
“Exponential math proves that even 1% yearly population growth will eventually lead to a planet composed entirely of human flesh if no other restraints apply. ”
That is just a stupid fact. If we continue to exponentially reproduce for all eternity, then yes, eventually the earth will be too small to hold everyone.
LikeLike
“Comprehensive sexual education reduces teen pregnancy and STD rates while delaying the age of first coitus.”
Is that what reduces teen pregnancy and STDs? Or is innovative vaccines and birth control?
LikeLike
The War on (some) Drugs has been a colossal failure and decriminalization and free treatment have been proven to reduce usage more than harsh policing.
I agree with this anyway, although when you through in the word (some) in there, you are painting with a pretty broad brush.
LikeLike
Sign me up for Pangolin’s agenda to house and provide for the homeless! I’ll take a modest apt and free alcoholic bevies all day! Make sure to put me in one of the areas where you give me free healthcare too!
Wait….what happens when the majority of the population chooses this option given the foreseeable unintended consequences it would cause? Who will provide the subsidized housing for millions out of the goodness of their heart? Pangolin, is that you I hear volunteering?
LikeLike
“Hostile bacteria and viral strains have no respect for race or class and leaving a population sector with no access or limited access to health care means you are breeding drug-resistant strains that will move to the general population. (MRSA)”
A University of Pittsburgh study indicates genetic variants may be more prevalent in African-Americans, which may explain why they may be more likely than whites to develop certain potentially life-threatening illnesses. Therefore, it seems that bactaria and viral strains do have a racial bias.
LikeLike
“Anthropogenic Climate Change is a FACT secured with more research and better research than that which backs the use of most pharmaceuticals.”
What is not fact is that is that more research is done on global warming than the pharma industry. What determines better research?
These are not facts. These are interpretations on studies that have been done. There are interpretations that argue both ways. Definitely not a fact.
LikeLike
Panda,
Thanks for that. Not sure what relevance these facts have in the conversation, but let’s figure it out.
“The planet has a limited supply of liquid oil and we’ve used up over half of that supply. The remaining half will be much, much, more expensive to recover. ”
Correct. Simple supply and demand. No one is debating the fact that oil is a fossil fuel and will eventually run out.
LikeLike
Do you have sources for these facts? I am not saying that I disagree, just would like sources. When I argue with intelligent people, they always seem to demand sources when I give them facts. Stupid of them, I know.
LikeLike
G_ Taking you at your word that are somehow an example of a Republican interested in facts lets try these.
The planet has a limited supply of liquid oil and we’ve used up over half of that supply. The remaining half will be much, much, more expensive to recover.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is a FACT secured with more research and better research than that which backs the use of most pharmaceuticals.
Hostile bacteria and viral strains have no respect for race or class and leaving a population sector with no access or limited access to health care means you are breeding drug-resistant strains that will move to the general population. (MRSA)
The War on (some) Drugs has been a colossal failure and decriminalization and free treatment have been proven to reduce usage more than harsh policing. (Portugal)
Comprehensive sexual education reduces teen pregnancy and STD rates while delaying the age of first coitus. (Netherlands)
Exponential math proves that even 1% yearly population growth will eventually lead to a planet composed entirely of human flesh if no other restraints apply.
Housing the homeless in modest but adequate studio apartments is CHEAPER for overall government expenses in policing and medical care than leaving them on the street. Even if they spend all their time drunk/stoned. Also giving clean alcoholic beverages to alcoholics is cheaper (medical cost reductions) than forcing them to scrounge for whatever they can find. (mouthwash, methanol)
I could go on and on all day.
p.s._ I agree with G. that James comparison of Republicans to ****sucker’s is an insult to many upstanding individuals gay and straight. Nobody who suck’s ***ck should feel that they are reducing themselves to the moral level of a Republican.
LikeLike
Is James he political science prof?
The problem isn’t the entitlement programs, Robert, the problem is that you and your fellow right wingers are greedy sons of bitches and are morally depraved. That you’re willing to let this country burn and its citizens go bankrupt and die because you’re too much of a ****sucker to lift a hand to help.
Now James, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a son of a bitch ****sucker.
I agree with a lot of Republicans, and I do not feel that I am a greedy son of a bitch. I also am not a “****sucker, although I do take offense to that term as it is hateful and disrespectful to the Gay community that supports the Democratic party
Also, I can see James’ frustration. Robert is throwing out talking points with no solution or facts. But, still no reason for the name calling.
LikeLike
Hi Ed!
You ask the following…
“Can any Republican explain where in the world they got these nightmare economic policies?”
Well, I haven’t been a Republican since my far-right fundamentalist days in the 80’s. And the Republican economic vision then, even under Reagan, was much less toxic than it is today. Reagan, for example, championed the Earned Income Tax Credit…a concept first advanced by President Ford. It was a targeted tax cut aimed at the working poor particularly. Today, the very Republicans who invoke the name of Reagan at every opportunity oppose such targeted tax cuts as “classist” and “preferential” because they don’t help the obscenely rich.
Given this, and given the fact that Reagan’s diplomatic approach (actually TALKING to enemies who possessed WMDs rather than invading their countries), is so different from today’s GOP…I’m surprised they invoke him at all. Reagan was a mainstream conservative. That today’s conservatives reject these two key planks in his world view only proves that they are no longer conservatives. They are anarchists. Or better, I would call them unrestrained social Darwinists.
But to answer your question above, you can take your pick…
1, Grover Norquist
2. Ayn Rand
3. Nathaniel Branden
4. Robert J. Ringer
5. The example and practices of ancient Sodom (Ez. 16:49)
LikeLike
Pangolin –
“Arguing about facts with a Republican is like trying to teach Plato to your cat. They hear the noise but can’t possibly relate to the content.”
Again, you are saying that every Republican is some dumb, narrow minded animal, that can’t understand anything. Again, I would say the same to a conservative who claimed arguing with a Democrat is the equivalent to arguing with a small child who only sees the world as rainbows and unicorns.
What facts are republicans having a tough time understanding? We will go from there.
LikeLike
Good afternoon, Robert!
You state, “We donlt need more of the same from Republicans or Democrats. We need REAL change!”
Might you be so kind as to name someone who could provide that? I’m curious to know.
Cheers!
Jim
LikeLike
Pangolin,
I spoke shop with my grandfather one day during the 2008 elections, and he told me that he was voting for McCain. I asked him what politics of McCain did he like, and his reasoning was that he was a POW. Now, I come from a military family and I have a lot of respect for soldiers. However, when I made the comment that, although it may make him a patriot for that level of sacrifice, it doesn’t really make him a great candidate for president. Once I said that, then it became the commie leftists had infiltrated my way of thinking, and that I needed to get my head out of my A%$ and learn politics.
Perfect example. Seems to me that a large portion of them do not research the issues, they associate being a certain race and socioeconomic classification means you vote a certain way, and they are run by their emotional triggers on who to vote for. Hence, the “let us restore our nation to it’s glorious roots” bullsh$t all the time.
LikeLike
Pangolin,
I spoke shop with my grandfather one day during the 2008 elections, and he told me that he was voting for McCain. I asked him what politics of McCain did he like, and his reasoning was that he was a POW. Now, I come from a military family and I have a lot of respect for soldiers. However, when I made the comment that, although it may make him a patriot for that level of sacrifice, it doesn’t really make him a great candidate for president. Once I said that, then it became the commie leftists had infiltrated my way of thinking, and that I needed to get my head out of my A%$ and learn politics.
Perfect example. Seems to me that a large portion of them do not research the issues, they associate being a certain race and socioeconomic classification means you vote a certain way, and they are run by their emotional triggers on who to vote for. Hence, the “let us restore our nation to it’s glorious roots” bullshit all the time.
LikeLike
The Republican “base” is wrapped around a core of conflicting emotional demands and have no interest or investment in “facts.” They simply do not care about whether the facts are in contradiction of what their tiny black hearts demand.
Arguing about facts with a Republican is like trying to teach Plato to your cat. They hear the noise but can’t possibly relate to the content.
LikeLike
Also, is it me or is Bachmann Palin 2.0? She is smarter, actually knows about how our country runs, and was a hotshot lawyer before she became a politician. I think the people who brought us McCain/Palin 2008 have to be behind Romney/Bachmann 2012.
LikeLike
“Because I find it laughably deranged of the right wing that they seem to think that the poor and the middle class should bankrupt themselves so the right wing can protect the asses of the rich from having to make any sacrifices whatsoever.”
Unfortunately true. But you know, Buggati just came out with a four door sedan, and those bad boys aren’t going to buy themselves. Thankfully for the Bush tax cuts, the richest 5% have the chance to purchase this bad boy for a cool $1 million dollars. I mean someone has to spend us out of a recession, right?
LikeLike
Robert writes:
Finally the term “entitlement programs” says much about the problem with them. Where do they stop? You might ask the families of the Seals who died how they feel about defense cuts. We donlt need more of the same from Republicans or Democrats
We spend more on our military then the next 30 countries combined, Robert. Would you like to bother to remember that overspending on the military was what bankrupted the Soviet Union? Those seals didn’t die because of cuts to the military and it is morally reprehensible that you use their sacrifice to justify your political position.
As for “entitlement programs” well fine if you feel that way lets see you withdraw you and your family from social security, medicare, and medicaid. If thats how you and your fellow Republicans feel lets see you put your money where your mouth is. Because I find it laughably deranged of the right wing that they seem to think that the poor and the middle class should bankrupt themselves so the right wing can protect the asses of the rich from having to make any sacrifices whatsoever.
SUrely you’re willing to legally put your money where your mouth is and provide proof that you will never accept social security and medicare, Robert?
The problem isn’t the entitlement programs, Robert, the problem is that you and your fellow right wingers are greedy sons of bitches and are morally depraved. That you’re willing to let this country burn and its citizens go bankrupt and die because you’re too much of a ****sucker to lift a hand to help.
LikeLike
From:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/22/news/economy/budget_taxes_poll/index.htm
Have fun arguing that CNN is liberally biased:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Hey, rich folks! The American people are putting you on notice. They want you to pay higher taxes.
Two new polls suggest there is broad support for raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year, and all in the name of deficit reduction.
Heck, even a majority of Republicans want the rich to pay more.
A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Fifty-five percent of Republicans want the tax hike, along with 74% of independents and 83% of Democrats.
In case you need more convincing, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday asked a similar question. The results: Seventy-two percent of respondents want to raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit, with a similar breakdown by political party.
Feel free to apologize for your foolish ignorance at any time, Robert.
LikeLike
Robert writes:
Sounds like politics as usual to me. What bothers me the most is you Dems implying your guys don’t do it. I’m sick of Obama and Washington in general. By the way, the ide that reps should not do what their constituents want is ridiculous at best. Also, tax increases, as a general rule, do not increase revenue.
Oh the Democrats do engage in politics. As for “reps should not do what their constitutents want” yeah here’s a newsflash for you..poll after poll after poll says that that the Republicans constituents, i.e. all of us, want taxes raised on the rich. Like to the tune of 60-70% of the American people want taxes raised on the rich.
And as for “tax increases, as a general rule, do not increase revenue” that is bullshit because the government was taking in a lot more revenue before Bush’s tax cuts.
What doesn’t increase government revenue, Robert, is tax cuts to the rich.
Time for you to get off your delusions.
LikeLike
Sounds like politics as usual to me. What bothers me the most is you Dems implying your guys don’t do it. I’m sick of Obama and Washington in general. By the way, the ide that reps should not do what their constituents want is ridiculous at best. Also, tax increases, as a general rule, do not increase revenue. Finally the term “entitlement programs” says much about the problem with them. Where do they stop? You might ask the families of the Seals who died how they feel about defense cuts. We donlt need more of the same from Republicans or Democrats. We need REAL change!
LikeLike
The Debate last night was a joke. They aren’t making these up on the spot, these are talking points to keep their constituents happy.
Two issues:
1) Republicans are catering to their ultra conservative, ultra religious following, much like the Democrats are accused of doing with the poor and minorities.
2) I am sick of every Republican candidate just repeating, “I will not raise taxes!” Alright, fine. You won’t raise taxes. Will you address tax loopholes at least? How about proposing a new tax system? How about one candidate offering a solution. Claiming to “not raise taxes” is not a solution, but rather, a talking point for ultra conservatives.
So did any Republican offer any solutions? Yeah, they did. All of them. Their solution to everything apparently, is to not raise taxes.
LikeLike