Now some shit's gonna get done!

[Fast_Eddie]

Yeah baby, new blood in Washington and they're going to get hard core on spending just like they said.

Mitch McConnell came out and *supported* Obamas ban on earmarks! Well we all know that earmarks account for a *lot* of wasteful spending. I mean, we've heard that over and over again in campaign speeches and commercials. Man, it must be a HUGE portion of our spending, don't you think? Now THIS is going to make a difference!

Or will it? McConnell says "You could eliminate every congressional earmark and you would save no money." Huh? How could that be!? According to this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/15/news.../earmarks_ban/

"That's because earmarks don't represent extra spending. They represent spending that lawmakers have already approved for federal agencies. And earmarks typically account for less than 1% of the budget."

Congress is simply going to vote away their ability to decide where spending happens and give it all to the Executive.

So that's it folks. We're going to hear all kinds of grand ideas to save big bucks, but at the end of the day, no one will touch Medicare, Medicade, Millitary spending or Social Security. Same old bag of nothing. Way to go Tea Part! Really bringing change to Washington!

Okay, but certainly, all those Tea Party candidates will make sure they don't vote for anything that adds to deficit, right? I mean, that is the CORE of their message. That's what they told us over and over again, right?

Well, maybe not. Tea Party candidate Vicky Hartzler from Missouri supports adding $60 Billion a year in deficit spending on farm subsidies. Like the more than $770,000 in farm subsidies she's recieved over the last 15 years.

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries...idy-hypocrisy/

Really? Did they really think they were voting for something different? Same old Republican BS they had. They'll do just what Reagan and Bush Jr. did. They'll cut taxes but not spending and lead us to ever bigger levels of debt.

[Charles]

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Concerning earmarks. Ron Paul had a novel idea, he wanted the entire budget to be earmarked.

According to him, at least we would have an idea of what the money was being spent on.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

I've said it before- every time Ron Paul talks I have to scratch my head and wonder why he's the only Republican who seems to often make a lot of sense.

Wonder how the apple fell so far from the tree?

[Charles]

Ed,

I also just looked at the clip about Hartzler, and I didn't find anything about her supporting an additional 60 billion in new farm subsidies.

Before we pass judgment on her, let's see what she does and how she votes once in office.

Looks like a pre election hit piece to me.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I've said it before- every time Ron Paul talks I have to scratch my head and wonder why he's the only Republican who seems to often make a lot of sense.

Wonder how the apple fell so far from the tree?

Here in Bugtussell, we say, "The nut don't fall far from the tree."

FYI,

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Charles

I also just looked at the clip about Hartzler, and I didn't find anything about her supporting an additional 60 billion in new farm subsidies.

Additional? Chas, you're smarter than that. What's the budget deficit? We're not paying for the subsidies we're paying (her) now. So, yes, they're "additional". I'm not the one who ran on cutting spending, she is. And now she's going to have to put up. I'm happy to sit back and watch with you brother. But she's already on record saying she won't cut anything that could add up to a hill of beans.

http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-poli...vicky-hartzler

"The congresswoman-elect would exempt some of the federal budget's high-cost categories -- including Social Security, Medicare and the Pentagon budget -- from cutbacks."

She says they should "look at" farm subsidies, as if to suggest she'll consider cutting them, but then she says:

"While she says some agriculture programs represent a "national defense issue" because they help guarantee that "we have a safety net to make sure we have food security in our country,"

We can't cut her $770,000 subsidy because of National Security. Sorry man, I'm sure they'll but on as big a show as they can muster and go on and on about cutting .005% here and .005% there and at the end of they day they'll cut an unrecognizeable sliver off the deficit and tell everyone what a great job they did. But rest assured, it will have nothing to do with saving money. I'll bet you this right now- they'll only cut things that represent social programs they disagree with. Anything to do with protecting the environment, helping poor people in cities or provide reasonable health care to Americans. But they won't cut *anything* that 1. adds up to shit or 2. has any bennefit for the rural folks who voted for them.

[Fast_Eddie]

I'll remind everyone again- if you exempt the programs she names "Social Security, Medicare and the Pentagon budget" and cut *the entire remainder of the budget* it wouldn't offset the defict let alone get us to a place where we can start paying down the debt. Saying she will exempt those programs is saying "I won't make any difference". They love to yack about "waste" like the Department of Education. Go look it up- what percentage of the Federal Budget are we "wasting" trying to better educate our children?

"Throwing money at it" may not help, but I'm pretty sure cutting all the money will make it worse.

[BlueStreak]

Fast Eddie, I love you, man.

But not in any turd pusher sort of way. Yuck.

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Additional? Chas, you're smarter than that. What's the budget deficit? We're not paying for the subsidies we're paying (her) now. So, yes, they're "additional". I'm not the one who ran on cutting spending, she is. And now she's going to have to put up. I'm happy to sit back and watch with you brother. But she's already on record saying she won't cut anything that could add up to a hill of beans.

http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-poli...vicky-hartzler

"The congresswoman-elect would exempt some of the federal budget's high-cost categories -- including Social Security, Medicare and the Pentagon budget -- from cutbacks."

She says they should "look at" farm subsidies, as if to suggest she'll consider cutting them, but then she says:

"While she says some agriculture programs represent a "national defense issue" because they help guarantee that "we have a safety net to make sure we have food security in our country,"

We can't cut her $770,000 subsidy because of National Security. Sorry man, I'm sure they'll but on as big a show as they can muster and go on and on about cutting .005% here and .005% there and at the end of they day they'll cut an unrecognizeable sliver off the deficit and tell everyone what a great job they did. But rest assured, it will have nothing to do with saving money. I'll bet you this right now- they'll only cut things that represent social programs they disagree with. Anything to do with protecting the environment, helping poor people in cities or provide reasonable health care to Americans. But they won't cut *anything* that 1. adds up to shit or 2. has any bennefit for the rural folks who voted for them.

No Ed, I'm not smarter than that. I thought that was what you said in your original post.

Myself, I wouldn't cut farm subsidizes, I would eliminate them. Most of the money goes to the connected well to do corporate farmers, what the little guys get amounts to no more than beer money.

I'd like to say more, but it's time to prepare for work.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

Enough folks get worried about the deficit (and it's not just the tea partiers) and the axe will fall. Like the de-horning of cattle years ago, it'll be a bloody mess.

I caught a segment on Independent Lens a couple months ago that followed a lot of corn from leasing the land to market. Instead of paying to let land lie fallow, the gooberment directly subsidises growing. I'd like to hear more Charles, see how it jives with what they said.

The result, lowest food prices as a % of income in generations. Also, we eat a darn site more corn than we think. I pay attention to fructose levels now, they don't know the long term effects and we eat it by the gallon.

Well cuff me to a tree and call me a greenie

Ron Paul kinda reminds me of Kucinich occasionally, sounds very smart and statesmenlike. But I'm not buying any Ron Paul dollars anytime soon

Pete