Brain Dead Republicans

[bevin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58069-2005Mar22.html

Quote:

---

"At every opportunity, [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay has sanctimoniously proclaimed his concern for the well-being of Terri Schiavo, saying he is only trying to ensure she has the chance 'we all deserve,' " the liberal Center for American Progress said in a statement Monday, echoing complaints of Democratic lawmakers and medical ethicists. "Just last week, DeLay marshaled a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion, threatening the quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo."

[:"red"]DeLay spokesman Dan Allen fired back: "The fact that they're tying a life issue to the budget process shows just how disconnected Democrats are to reality."[/]

---

Disconnected from reality?

Who the heck does DeLay think is going to pay for the treatment? Someone should reconnect DeLay's feeding tube - his brain is lacking sugar.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

You need to refuse to be a top. Don't let people spin you.

Do you know the difference between a cut and a reduction in growth? What many news networks call a cut is actually a reduction in growth.

[bevin]

You think there is going to be a $15B reduction in growth

ROFLOL

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know. Do you? That was my point. We can't trust the mainstream media to not spin the news.

[bevin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63985-2005Mar1.html

Quote:

---

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush is committed to his proposal to trim $60 billion -- or about 2 percent -- from the program over the next decade. "The president has outlined a plan for moving forward on strengthening Medicaid," he said. "What it will do is save some money by shutting down the loopholes and stopping the accounting gimmicks that go on in the program."

---

Quote:

---

Bush views the $324 billion program as a key target in his effort to slash the federal deficit. The single largest reduction in his proposed budget for fiscal 2006 is the $60 billion Medicaid cut. The administration would reinvest $15 billion of that in other health care initiatives such as the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

---

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/budget.medicaid.ap/

Quote:

---

The Senate voted Thursday to strip all proposed Medicaid cuts from the $2.6 trillion budget for next year, killing the heart of the plan's deficit reduction and dealing an embarrassing setback to President Bush and Republican leaders.

---

Quote:

---

By their vote, senators deleted the $14 billion in five-year reductions that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, included in his fiscal outline.

---

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bevin, none of that clarifies if it is an actual cut or growth reduction. The mainstream press calls growth reduction "cuts". So when the mainstream press says "cut" it often means growth reduction.

One article says it is a $324 billion program. So does that mean the proposal was to reduce it to $309 billion or were they simply "cutting" $15 billion of expected growth.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bush is committed to his proposal to trim $60 billion -- or about 2 percent -- from the program over the next decade.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

2% of $324 billion is $6.5 billion not $60 billion. So that math doesn't work out.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

senators deleted the $14 billion in five-year

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If it is an actual cut, $14 billion over five years would be less than 1%. So again the math doesn't work.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The Senate voted Thursday to strip all proposed Medicaid cuts... dealing an embarrassing setback to President Bush and Republican leaders.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Now there is some spin. Republicans control the Senate so how could the Republicans leaders deal an embarrassing setback to the Republicans leaders? It should read that Senate Republicans dealt an embarrassing setback to the Bush Administration.

Well, Bush can't say he didn't try. If we are going to reduce the defecit it is going to hurt. It can't be done pain free.

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Well, Bush can't say he didn't try. If we are going to reduce the defecit it is going to hurt. It can't be done pain free.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Reduce the deficit?? I hadn't heard Bush was even trying.

We could start by getting our troops out of Iraq.

Then by restoring the tax cuts Bush gave to the wealthy -- getting us all back on the same tax footing as we were when Clinton balanced the federal budget.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Well, Bush can't say he didn't try. If we are going to reduce the deficit it is going to hurt.

---

Small hint. You don't cut a deficit by increasing spending and decreasing income. Someone who does both these things is not really trying.

If you want to LOOK like you are trying, while not actually trying, then you pretend to try to cut popular and important programs.

Quote:

---

It can't be done pain free.

---

You got that right.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Sister Jeannie, you come off as such a smart-allic it is hard to try and reason with you. I will try.

Bush didn't try to balance the budget during his first term. For some reason he is now trying to do so. Of course liberals will disagree with his proposed cuts and reductions in growth. Such disagreement is good. Compromises will be made and hopefully we will get a good budget when it is done.

Getting out of Iraq is not an option. Perhaps you are still sore about the war and that your anti-war canidate lost the presidential election. Pulling out of Iraq would make a bad situation worse. We have to see it out.

The rich carry the tax burden in this country. Bush cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Since the rich are the ones that pay the most taxes, any tax cut will benefit them the most. Regardless, it worked. The economy is now recovering and the fed is slowly increasing interest rates. Now I would favor small tax increases at this time IF there were matching budget cuts. Unfortunately it rarely works that way. When government increases taxes it usaully increases spending too.

You may claim Clinton balanced the budget. I claim Newt Gingrich did it. Do you remember all the ugly battles over the budget in the 1990s? Do you remember the Republicans shut down the government? Those were heated times. The Republicans cut and slashed the budget and Clinton fought them on numerous issues. Newt did the dirty work and it cost him his job. The right thing is rarely popular.

Every honest American knows the reason we didn't keep a surplus or at least low defecits is the combination of 9/11, the recession and the war on terror. Could have Bush been more fiscally responsible? I believe so. But I am not going to blame everything on him yet he does deserve a fair share of critism for not being as fiscally conservative as he should have been. Now it seems he is trying so I support that.