From FreedomWorks....

Quote:House Speaker John Boehner and the failed political establishment are purging House Committees of fiscal conservatives.

So far, Reps. Amash, Huelskamp, and Schweikert have been removed from their respective committees for refusing to vote in lock step with the Republicans on endless spending. These members have been some of the most reliable votes for economic freedom and the Constitution, and they are now being punished for their loyalty to their Oath of Office.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (KS) – Removed from the House Budget Committee (96% FreedomWorks Lifetime Rating).

Rep. Justin Amash (MI) – Removed from the House Budget Committee (100% FreedomWorks Lifetime Rating).

Rep. David Schweikert (AZ) – Removed from the House Financial Services (96% FreedomWorks Lifetime Rating).

Boehner is weak.

There is nobody with guts in the leadership of either party--except maybe Reid and Pelosi. Wonderful, wonderful.

The GOP has spent and spent relentlessly while in power, sure they lowered taxes, but it's not like they lowered spending. If lower spending is what you're going for, not sure why you'd ever vote in a Republican. They may not spend it on welfare, but they certainly aren't for smaller government.

(12-04-2012 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The GOP has spent and spent relentlessly while in power, sure they lowered taxes, but it's not like they lowered spending. If lower spending is what you're going for, not sure why you'd ever vote in a Republican. They may not spend it on welfare, but they certainly aren't for smaller government.

Absolutely, positively, agree.

Would only add that lower spending is no reason to vote democrat either.

It might be a reason to vote gridlock, but even that remains to be seen. If any of the proposals on the table get enacted, we're hosed.

Pathetic. **** Boehner.

(12-04-2012 04:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The GOP has spent and spent relentlessly while in power, sure they lowered taxes, but it's not like they lowered spending. If lower spending is what you're going for, not sure why you'd ever vote in a Republican. They may not spend it on welfare, but they certainly aren't for smaller government.

Absolutely, positively, agree.

Would only add that lower spending is no reason to vote democrat either.

It might be a reason to vote gridlock, but even that remains to be seen. If any of the proposals on the table get enacted, we're hosed.

I assume it's a given if lower spending is your concern, you don't vote democrat. When half your platform is making sure people have healthcare, food on the table, an education, a job that pays a reasonable wage, a roof over their head, and decent infrastructure, it's kind of assumed you'll be spending money.

(12-04-2012 04:30 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The GOP has spent and spent relentlessly while in power, sure they lowered taxes, but it's not like they lowered spending. If lower spending is what you're going for, not sure why you'd ever vote in a Republican. They may not spend it on welfare, but they certainly aren't for smaller government.

Absolutely, positively, agree.

Would only add that lower spending is no reason to vote democrat either.

It might be a reason to vote gridlock, but even that remains to be seen. If any of the proposals on the table get enacted, we're hosed.

I assume it's a given if lower spending is your concern, you don't vote democrat. When half your platform is making sure people have healthcare, food on the table, an education, a job that pays a reasonable wage, a roof over their head, and decent infrastructure, it's kind of assumed you'll be spending money.

Damn, all that **** is in the Constitution

(12-04-2012 04:30 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The GOP has spent and spent relentlessly while in power, sure they lowered taxes, but it's not like they lowered spending. If lower spending is what you're going for, not sure why you'd ever vote in a Republican. They may not spend it on welfare, but they certainly aren't for smaller government.

Absolutely, positively, agree.
Would only add that lower spending is no reason to vote democrat either.
It might be a reason to vote gridlock, but even that remains to be seen. If any of the proposals on the table get enacted, we're hosed.

I assume it's a given if lower spending is your concern, you don't vote democrat. When half your platform is making sure people have healthcare, food on the table, an education, a job that pays a reasonable wage, a roof over their head, and decent infrastructure, it's kind of assumed you'll be spending money.

Number one, I'm not giving democrats credit for any of that, except the spending money part. They don't actually do anything to bring about any of those results. They talk about doing those things, and apparently there's a sizable portion of the electorate who believe their lies. But at the end of the day, the only way the democrats care about the poor is to keep them poor, dumb, and voting democrat. Hell, if the poor started getting out of the poverty trap, some of them might start voting republican, and God forbid that would happen--getting out of poverty or voting republican.

Number two, these are not things that are properly the role of government, and certainly not the federal government. Let the government create a reasonable market economy, and those things happen anyway.

But Owl, if they do what you say at the end of number 2..... they lose all of their power and then........well you know

Didn't say it was in the constitution.. said it was their platform. What does it being in the constitution have to do with anything?

Define reasonable?

And while these things may not be in the constitution per se as the "role of government", fact is that this country has decided over the years that they are.

(12-04-2012 05:30 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Didn't say it was in the constitution.. said it was their platform. What does it being in the constitution have to do with anything?

Well god forbid we actually follow the Constitution

(12-04-2012 05:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:30 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The GOP has spent and spent relentlessly while in power, sure they lowered taxes, but it's not like they lowered spending. If lower spending is what you're going for, not sure why you'd ever vote in a Republican. They may not spend it on welfare, but they certainly aren't for smaller government.

Absolutely, positively, agree.
Would only add that lower spending is no reason to vote democrat either.
It might be a reason to vote gridlock, but even that remains to be seen. If any of the proposals on the table get enacted, we're hosed.

I assume it's a given if lower spending is your concern, you don't vote democrat. When half your platform is making sure people have healthcare, food on the table, an education, a job that pays a reasonable wage, a roof over their head, and decent infrastructure, it's kind of assumed you'll be spending money.

Number one, I'm not giving democrats credit for any of that, except the spending money part. They don't actually do anything to bring about any of those results. They talk about doing those things, and apparently there's a sizable portion of the electorate who believe their lies. But at the end of the day, the only way the democrats care about the poor is to keep them poor, dumb, and voting democrat. Hell, if the poor started getting out of the poverty trap, some of them might start voting republican, and God forbid that would happen--getting out of poverty or voting republican.

Number two, these are not things that are properly the role of government, and certainly not the federal government. Let the government create a reasonable market economy, and those things happen anyway.

They don't do those things? Then what are the conservatives here complaining about all the time? What's all that rage about food stamps and unemployment if Dems aren't the ones supporting it? All those welfare babies and their gifts, voting for Barack Obama. I guess that was all just a bunch of hullabaloo over nothing then. Good to know.

(12-04-2012 05:32 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 05:30 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Didn't say it was in the constitution.. said it was their platform. What does it being in the constitution have to do with anything?

Well god forbid we actually follow the Constitution

You didn't answer the question.

(12-04-2012 05:32 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 05:30 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Didn't say it was in the constitution.. said it was their platform. What does it being in the constitution have to do with anything?

Well god forbid we actually follow the Constitution

Don't forget this part:

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina has also been removed from the House Financial Services Committee. He also voted against every debt ceiling increase.

(12-04-2012 05:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina has also been removed from the House Financial Services Committee. He also voted against every debt ceiling increase.

Good. Not increasing the debt ceiling is likely the worst possible thing that can happen.

(12-04-2012 05:33 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  They don't do those things? Then what are the conservatives here complaining about all the time? What's all that rage about food stamps and unemployment if Dems aren't the ones supporting it? All those welfare babies and their gifts, voting for Barack Obama. I guess that was all just a bunch of hullabaloo over nothing then. Good to know.

The complaint is that democrats spend a lot of money but don't do those things.

Will Obamacare spend a lot of money? Yes. Will it provide health care for everyone? No.
Do food stamps spend a lot of money? Yes. Do they put food on everyone's table? Np.
Do we spend a ton of money on education? Yes. Has education gotten better or worse for all the money we've spent? By all indicators, worse.
Do we spend a lot of money on "stimulus" to provide jobs? Yes. Does everyone have a job? No. Unemployment is at its highest sustained level since the Great Depression.
Do we spend a lot of money on housing? Yes. Does everyone have a house? No.
Do we spend a lot of money on infrastructure? Yes. How is our infrastructure? It sux.

Spending money does not mean solving problems. Sometimes the money makes things better, sometimes worse.

(12-04-2012 05:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:30 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  The GOP has spent and spent relentlessly while in power, sure they lowered taxes, but it's not like they lowered spending. If lower spending is what you're going for, not sure why you'd ever vote in a Republican. They may not spend it on welfare, but they certainly aren't for smaller government.

Absolutely, positively, agree.
Would only add that lower spending is no reason to vote democrat either.
It might be a reason to vote gridlock, but even that remains to be seen. If any of the proposals on the table get enacted, we're hosed.

I assume it's a given if lower spending is your concern, you don't vote democrat. When half your platform is making sure people have healthcare, food on the table, an education, a job that pays a reasonable wage, a roof over their head, and decent infrastructure, it's kind of assumed you'll be spending money.

Number one, I'm not giving democrats credit for any of that, except the spending money part. They don't actually do anything to bring about any of those results. They talk about doing those things, and apparently there's a sizable portion of the electorate who believe their lies. But at the end of the day, the only way the democrats care about the poor is to keep them poor, dumb, and voting democrat. Hell, if the poor started getting out of the poverty trap, some of them might start voting republican, and God forbid that would happen--getting out of poverty or voting republican.

Number two, these are not things that are properly the role of government, and certainly not the federal government. Let the government create a reasonable market economy, and those things happen anyway.

As usual, you parrot standard right-wing talking points.