House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being blasted in the media for proposing to lower government spending. No details have been discussed, but the intention is clearly to lower pork barrel spending. Why are so many on the right objecting to this?
2007-01-08 03:57:40 · 8 answers · asked by Johnny K 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
ROFL why are they objecting? They invented the pork barrell, that's why!
Seems like a bunch of MEN are a little INTIMIDATED by a WOMAN speaker of the house????
How about cutting the military budget first??? Does Halliburton REALLY need all that money???
2007-01-08 04:01:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I feel sorry for your naivety. The federal budget has never, ever in the history of the country gotten smaller. It won't now either. You are being lied to, there will be no decrease in spending.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.
By the way, the "right" is not objecting to decreased spending. They object to the language of the bill which states that if there are budget overruns (there will be, because there always are) then congress has 2 options: cut spending or raise taxes. Let me assure you, that spending cuts will never, ever happen. So that only leaves the option of higher taxes.
This is the Democrat's plan to "balance the budget". Instead of spending money they don't have and running up the deficit, Congress would be required to raise taxes for their surpluses. So the deficit does not go up, but spending does and taxes do. In other words, we (the tax payers) loose no matter what happens.
2007-01-08 12:10:29 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on what she poposes cutting. Certainly, if she proposes military spending cuts, the repubs will be all over that.
We do need to lower spending and that will mean somebody will get less from the goverment teet. We will have to make tough decisions on what to spend and what not to spend. Somebody will be unhappy-- too bad. We need to balance the budget.
It seem she wants to reinstate pay-as-you-go rules which dictate that new spending has to be offset by either taxes/revenue or spending cuts. That's certainly reasonable and something the R's put in place during the Clinton years.
"The last thing we need to do is to be raising taxes in this country, and 'pay-go' is the first step toward raising taxes," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "I think there will be very few, if any, Republicans who will support raising taxes
What a joke-- so, McConnell proposes new spending w/out the corresponding revenue to pay for it.
These are simple concepts folks-- you have expense and you have revenue. The way to balance them is give and take on both ends. You want more gov, you've got pay for it or reduce elsewhere.
2007-01-08 12:05:41 · answer #3 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No true conservative will eveeer object to reduce government spending the devil is in the details.
One of the things republicans are concern about is that the democrats has purpose a pay as you go policy, which if you are familiar with the character of democrats it probably a code word for raising taxes when there is not enough to cover a particular program.
2007-01-08 13:34:57 · answer #4 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I haven't seen people "on the right" objecting to this. Do you have a source?
The issue comes down to what spending gets cut. If Pelosi attempts to cut military spending, while our nation is involved in Iraq, heavens yes, we will scream, and rightly. It is our troops who pay for that cut in spending.
Oh, and wmcritter is absolutely correct.
2007-01-08 12:27:13 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Certainly no conservatives object to decreased government spending.
Considering that over $1.5 trillion per year is spend on unConstitutional outlays, like Social security, medicare, education, disaster relief, etc, there is plenty of spending to cut.
2007-01-08 12:06:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well because Alaska clearly needs 100 million dollards for a bridge to nowhere and surveillance cameras everywhere.
God forbid Congress has to cut funding on their pet projects.
2007-01-08 11:59:43 · answer #7 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It should be decreased... but not how Pelosi wants to do it...
Government should cut out spending $$$ on arts programs, handouts to the lazy, etc... not to national security and national defense... and we certainly should not increase spending with universal healthcare and the other liberal handout nonsense
2007-01-08 12:00:36 · answer #8 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋