Republicans fed up with Republicans
The latest Washington Post ABC poll has some dramatic results
In the new poll, fully 50 percent of conservative Republicans and “strong” tea party supporters say the GOP leadership is too unwilling to make a deal on the deficit. “
When they’ve lost the tea partyers they are in trouble.
Also
More than eight in 10 — including 80 percent of Republicans — say there would be serious harm to the U.S. economy if the government could not continue to borrow money to fund its operations and pay its debts after Aug. 2.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, had the question been asked that way, a plurality would say they opposed raising the debt ceiling.
Finally cutting Medicaid is the least popular option for reducing the deficit opposed by 74%. You read that right Medicaid.
Full results can be found with repeated clicking (in the past, the Washington Post didn’t hide them so thoroughly).
Obfuscant congressional “republicans” last week voted $649B for war profits and empire while they talk cutting SS and medicare.
Conservatives care about the country.
Obfuscating congressional “republicans” are not talking “cutting big government”.
It is obvious the obfuscant congressional “republicans” only support corporate welfare (the 40% of spending for a few), at the expense of SS, caring for the many and the middle class.
Conservatives remember that the ‘common defense’ does not mean empire and huge war profits.
It is obvious the cutting talk is only for cutting safety net, conservatives support the promises made on SS more than empire and lowering fees to operate corporate jets.
Obfuscant congressional “republicans” are anti New Deal, while the New Deal is America.
“…had the question been asked that way, a plurality would say they opposed raising the debt ceiling.”
Should that “had” be “hadn’t”?
Here is the bigger problem. They all agree that the US is spending too much and needs to cut. To much is relative to the nations income, population size and benefits as a result of the spending.
Your final assertion seems to make a jump from what the data say to what you have to say. Generally, when asked about the benefits received from government, poll respondents are unwilling to give any up. That does not suggest the average poll respondent thinks spending is “to (sic) much” relative to benefits received. That’s just you editorializing. Responses to poll questions suggest people really like the benefits they receive from government.
By the way, today’s NYT also reports that tea-party affiliated freshmen House members also like the benefits government provides. Many of them are pushing spending projects in their own districts, some of which were previously offered as ear-marks and turned down by House leadership. Same old “none for you, but plenty for me” selfishness.
ilsm
The verb obfuscate has no noun equivalent, but the concept is clearly valid as you are trying to use it.
obfuscate:
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
Does that sound familiar. Remember that definition the next time someone here posts long series of numerical data claiming to add clarity to the discussion. Or they drag this into the conversation,
“Senator Coburn’s plan, in its extensive detail, contains many worthwhile deficit reduction initiatives. I don’t support all of his ideas, but that is to be expected. Unlike you, I don’t toss his plan in the trash just because he is a Republican and not a “worthy” Democrat.’ But the devil is in the details and Coburn’s image is burnished by noting that he opposes some of Norquist’s demands. Forgive me if I’m not impressed by that kind of clarification of the validity of a Congressman’s or Senator’s ideas and proposals. As noted the devil is in the details. Here’s a brief analysis from NavyTimes (Gannett) noting some of the losses to military personnel.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/07/military-coburn-deficit-reduction-plan-072011p/
In any long and detailed financial proposal it is easy to throw the baby into the fire you’re trying to put out with bath water. The better way is to put out the deficit fire, (does it even reach bonfire proportions?) without sacrificing the babies that might be bathing in the water. Too much detail is often the subterfuge of the obfuscatory rhetoric.
Thanks for the link I use retiree TRICARE.
They have been after the $11B a year (2011) for TRICARE for some time now.
Next they will go back to REDUX for new guys retirement, which is 100% taxpayer funded anyway.
Cannot cut into the $11B a year star wars gravy train or the $1B overrun in the first few F-35’s, or the 1B overrun in the just awarded over sized aerial tanker program from Boeing which is already selling them overseas………
40% of the budget IS for a percent or two, 60% for 95% OF THE POPULATION GETS THE CUTS.
Caps involuntary, hit caplock by accident
Jack,
I had hoped that you would change your disgusting antics on Dan’s blog. Obviously that is not the case.
You are once again engaging in intentional misdirection and obfuscation, pretending that data presented on an economics blog should be roundly ignored. This has always been part of your closed-mindedness and medieval arrogance, particularly concerning fiscal year federal budget and deficit reduction discussions which you abhoar.
You have foolishly taken the position on another comment thread this week “that very few suggestions are provided as to which governemnt activities should be reduced or elimiinated in order to achieve balance or simply reduce dificiency”. Your statement is pure bullshit. Many deficit reductions reports and recommendations have been posted in comments at Dan’s blog. Apparently, you’re arrogant enough to ignore the recommendations and pretend they do not exist, including CBO’s deficit reduction options released earlier this year. Most of that information has been posted on this blog, so stop trying to mislead others.
You are foolish in your attempt to apply the “they” label to anything that I state on this blog. I only speak for myself as an individual and independent voter. If you have anything to say about something I have written, you would be wise to direct it to me first instead of clipping an excerpt from a post that I have created and then attempt to use my statement as an enemy alert exercise. I will call you on it every time that I note your antics.
Beyond that truth, it is clear to many observers and participants that you have attempted to drive moderate Democrats, independents, and Republicans from Dan’s blog. I was participating on Dan’s blog years before you stumbled upon it, and I will be a participant long after you have drifted along on your way. Dan’s blog is, after all, an economics blog where data will always be posted in support of arguments and positions.
Your reaction to Senator Coburn’s proposal is typical of those who are wrapped up in a political ideology and set of personal beliefs that refuse to consider other proposals. It is apparent that you have not bothered to read the methodology and list of cited references employed in Senator Coburn’s proposal let alone review the recommendations for each department and agency. You’re just demonstrating more medieval arrogance and sheer stupidity. Speaking of which, I stated this expectation in my original post this week on another thread:
“I expect many individuals to assume that all is well after the debt ceiling decision occurs, but that certainly will not be the situation. Similarly, the majority of the econ blogs which already have a history of severe weakness in federal budget analysis are likely to go back to sleep on this issue. And deficit reduction proposals like that of Senator Coburn and his staff are likely to be ignored out of sheer stupidity, general ignorance, political ideology, arrogance, or any combination thereof. All par for the course among those who fail to grasp the significance and scale of the fiscal threat.”
That covers you, Jack.
ilsm – “It is obvious the obfuscant congressional “republicans” only support corporate welfare (the 40% of spending for a few), at the expense of SS, caring for the many and the middle class.”
You appear to think that you can say anything on Dan’s blog and others will foolishly believe you without any facts to back up some of your claims.
I would like to see you identify the 40% of federal spending that solely supports corporate welfare, and how it occurs at the supposed expense of the Social Security Administration or the SSA OASDI programs.
I am of the opinion that you can’t back up your statement any more than you could back up the following statement on another thread that you made this week: “If war is so expansionary what is the trouble with paying the SSTF back which paid the tax cuts and the wars.”
I don’t understand your apparent lack of honesty considering your educational background and the values you were taught in the earlier years of your life. I like you, ilsm, but you’re way over the top with some of your statements.
If you throw in the corporate welfare aspects of medicare and medicaid for the medical insurance complex, it is far more than 40%.
Education. The Jesuits teach: get their attention before you apply the rack.
What do you think the mix is?
The nearly 40% is called discretionary and includes the military industry congress complex’ 20% which does not include other agencies’ security related spending.
And, congress, Buck Mc Keon and others saying the military cannot do it inflated unconstitutional job with less than a trillion a year is begging the question, why not get a bit austere with the “job” and the expensive ways to approach it.
Compared toMc Keon and ilk I am a miniscule piker.
Some other Jesuits taught finding knowledge.
On this date in 1773 Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuit order, image a pope against thumb screws.