The Republican Alternative Budget

[Shady]

As I stated in a post last week, in another thread from a forum member, who's childish over-anxiousness led him to premature excoriation. The Republican budget alternative has arrived.

Moreover, the Obama plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation's debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation's GDP by the last year of the budget. This approach will ultimately debase our currency and reduce the living standards of the American people.

Instead of doubling the debt in five years, and tripling it in 10, the Republican budget curbs the explosion in spending called for by the president and his party. Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today's economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations -- and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see nearby chart)

Chart

The GOP's Alternative Budget

[eyeball]

Our budget gives priority to national defence...

[GostHacked]

Looks like the Republicans are going back to their real roots of small government, and an end to the borrow and spend ideology.

And Ron Paul was laughed at when he talked about this. And he HAS been talking about if for years. Even during the elections he was talking abot it, buuut poeple laughed at him.

From your article.

Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today's economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations -- and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see nearby chart).

If the Reps were really concerned about this, this might have been dealt with while they were in office and held majorities in the senate and congress.

I have to agree with Eyeball on this one

- Spending. Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care. We freeze all other discretionary spending for five years, allowing it to grow modestly after that. We also place all spending under a statutory spending cap backed up by tough budget enforcement

I recall Rumsfeld saying they could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions over a period of a couple years. So the reps want to throw more money in that hole?? Classified things with classified amounts of money and little to no accountablility for the loss of classified money.

If the reps really wanted to stop being dependant on foreign oil, Iraq would have never been invaded. But I guess once you take over a country it is not really foreign oil anymore.

Not to mention that chart is all projected. It goes all the way up to 2080. That is 70 years down the road. I am sure Dems and Reps had enough forsight back in the 1920s to predict the outcome we are seeing today. Makes laugh, but in a really sad way.

[Shady]

If the Reps were really concerned about this, this might have been dealt with while they were in office and held majorities in the senate and congress.

Yes they should have. But they followed a President who didn't share similar goals. Fortunately, they have the '94 - 00' Republican Congress to look at as a blueprint.

I recall Rumsfeld saying they could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions over a period of a couple years. So the reps want to throw more money in that hole?? Classified things with classified amounts of money and little to no accountablility for the loss of classified money.

Yeah, Rumsfeld said a lot of things. Luckily, he's not a legislator, and won't be part of any future Republican Congress.

If the reps really wanted to stop being dependant on foreign oil, Iraq would have never been invaded. But I guess once you take over a country it is not really foreign oil anymore.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the new Republican alternative budget. They've outlined a great proposal for the development of more American oil and natural gas, which will help fund clean energy technology. It's a short-term and long-term solution, which has little to do with Iraq.

Not to mention that chart is all projected. It goes all the way up to 2080. That is 70 years down the road. I am sure Dems and Reps had enough forsight back in the 1920s to predict the outcome we are seeing today. Makes laugh, but in a really sad way.

Do you need a tissue? Then ignore the last 70 - 75 years of the projection, and concentrate on the first 5 - 10. Better now? Good.

Now Americans have a choice. Higher taxes, larger government, a doubling of the national debt over 5 years, a tripling of the national debt over 10 years, and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Or, lower taxes, smaller government, and balanced budgets and lowering debt.

[GostHacked]

Yes they should have. But they followed a President who didn't share similar goals. Fortunately, they have the '94 - 00' Republican Congress to look at as a blueprint.

But of course now it is all the Dems faults along with Obama.

Yeah, Rumsfeld said a lot of things. Luckily, he's not a legislator, and won't be part of any future Republican Congress.

The point was really about the wastefull spending within the DOD, which this plan will contribute to. The US spends more money on defence than anything else. So with classified projects with classified budgets you can easily see (or maybe not) where your money is getting pissed away with little to no accountability. Back in the year 2000 dollars 2.3 trillion is about the same amount Obama has taken the American people for. Or will take. It is also about the same cost as Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the new Republican alternative budget. They've outlined a great proposal for the development of more American oil and natural gas, which will help fund clean energy technology. It's a short-term and long-term solution, which has little to do with Iraq.

You could think of it this way, and bear with me.... The US could have wanted to avoid another crisis like in the 1970s. Why not use some of your energy to get into another country, to secure the energy there for you to use, station a permanent presence there, and supply the homeland with some of the energy. So spending the money on a military operation in another country which has a holyf*cktonne of oil. There is also no real hurry to find local oil/gas now because you can essentially behind the sceens, control Iraqs oil. Took the US over 20 years to get the oil. They are not about to just give it up or give it back. There has not been a new oil refinery built in the US for a few years from what I understand. And if the ground was broken on a new factory today, you won't see anything out of it for 5+ years.

If the government wants to build them, is that not nationalization of it? I thought that is what the oil companies are for. To grow and build new plants. With the current crisis, and the amount of unemployment, it would be really easy now to hire skilled yet cheap labour to build these new facilities. But I guess my question is.. is it affordable to build those plants in this so called economic crisis?

Do you need a tissue? Then ignore the last 70 - 75 years of the projection, and concentrate on the first 5 - 10. Better now? Good.

No, I say it is next to impossible to determine the next 70-75 years. If they were able to do it back in the 1920s or 30s, something might have been learned from the Great Depression and this current crisis could have been predicted then. We have seen exponential human growth in the past 70 years. We also have seen exponential human greed in that 70 years or so. Both are just going to increase in this next 70 years. I say there are too many factors to predict with even vague accuracy of what those lines will look like. Al gore made a line to look like a hockey stick ..

It is possible to predict with some accuracy the next 5 to 10 years. So more concentration should be done in that time to really 'stay on course for change'. Because if those goals in the short term are not adheared to, then you can toss the rest of the predictions out the window.

Now Americans have a choice. Higher taxes, larger government, a doubling of the national debt over 5 years, a tripling of the national debt over 10 years, and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Or, lower taxes, smaller government, and balanced budgets and lowering debt.

Americans has always had the choice of what leader they are abused by, that is true. It's all smoke and mirros in the end. Both sides play different games when the other guys man is in power. It's a show they put on and change up every 4-8 years. You would have gotten the same from McCain.

And as a whole no country is going ever going to get rid of the debt with the way the current system is set up. For example, banks lend out money at interest to make a profit. The IMF and World Bank lend out to countries at interest to make a profit. They call this 'globalization'. This makes the residents of said country in debt as a whole to the IMF and World Bank and to those non elected, non democratic people who run them.

[punked]

We finally get a budget in it with numbers and it is a Joke.

They don't want to cut any spending but they want a tax cut of 15% for anyone earning over 100 000 and a tax cut of 10% for anyone earning under 100 000. Tell me again how you don't cut spending but cut your tax revenue in more then half and your debt goes down? HOW DOES THAT WORK SHADY?

[punked]

HAHAHAHA anyone look at Shady's chart? You know the one shady says "just look over the next 5 to 10 years so you know what will happen"

Well those projections are based on BUSH YEARS. Yah that line that says Obama is actually Bush's line. The republicans are running against themselves again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/g...w_n_181916.html

HAHAHAHA Classic Republicans! Ruin the country then Blame the Dems.

[stevoh]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I also believe this budget calls for a non-military related spending freeze.

A spending freeze during a recession is the WORST POSSIBLE ACTION.

[BubberMiley]

Fortunately, their lunacy has placed them far beyond power and their budgets, for the foreseeable future, will remain alternative ones.

Edited April 2, 2009 by BubberMiley

[jdobbin]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270382

While stating their collective dissatisfaction with the federal budget put forward by the Obama Administration, 38 House Republicans voted against the GOP alternative budget - demonstrating a significant split among party members.

It is one thing to say that you are against something - but it is an entirely different manner to actually act against the thing you oppose. This is certainly part of the lesson House Republicans are taking away from their inability to vote holistically in favor of the GOP's alternative budget.

That's a good chunk of Republicans not happy with either approach.