Thursday, May 9, 2013

Eric Cantor blames media for lousy GOP messaging, and focus on their debt and deficits whining.

The deficit was $1.2 trillion when Obama took office. That was the bill left by free spending Republicans during the Bush years. Before that the U.S. had projected surpluses. So who do you blame? That's an easy one right?

So how odd is it for Republicans to be this outraged Obama hasn't paid off their check yet? 

Why don’t Democrats ask Republicans to pay off the tab they ran up before anyone talks about tax cut and reform?

And because Democrats haven’t framed the issue as I have above, and held them accountable, they’re now able to exploit the issue:
The Hill: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) ripped the media in a speech to the Ripon Society, arguing press coverage is partly responsible for the GOP’s messaging woes. Cantor said the party’s economic message is often drowned out by coverage of debt and deficits. 
Huh, but "debt and deficit" is all the GOP is talking about...oh, never mind. It's the media's fault for the Republicans lousy message of austerity and plans to rob our kids retirement safety nets. The laughable jumble of words and idea’s below should give you an clue as to why low information conservative voters stopped trying to understand what’s really going on:
“The media has done a great job of sort of shoving us in the corner, because all they say we are concerned with is somehow balancing the budget and cutting spending and taking things away from people,” Cantor said. “What we’re trying to say is that we need to do those things in order to reenergize the opportunity machine of America. We’re about giving people opportunity. And that’s really what our agenda this year is about.” He said the party must do a better job of speaking to the concerns of people at the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Like telling people on the lower rungs they’re squandering food stamps on junk food...that they’re not paying their fair share of taxes? Speaking to those concerns?

Republican got us into this mess, and should be required to pay off the bill, even if it means a temporary tax increase. That would be leadership, the tough decision. They’re a little late on the fiscal discipline talk. Get back to us guys.
Still, Cantor said Republican leadership is committed to “fiscal discipline” that he said would drive economic growth … He pointed to initiatives such as … a bill that would allow employees to choose how they would like to get reimbursed for overtime. 
Really, are employees clamoring for "choices" in how they would get paid for overtime. Was time and a half too complicated? I sniff another employer con job coming...

8 comments:

Peter said...

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Democrats have control of the House AND Senate for the last two years of Bush's second term?

Doesn't the House control the purse strings? So wouldn't that mean that the Democrats were the ones that left the $1.2Trillion dollar deficit?

Nice Revisionist History attempt there.

Democurmudgeon said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but did senate Republicans block everything coming out of the house those last two years under Bush? What's that word...fili...filibuster, that's it.

In just two years? Democratic spending faced a Bush veto. The hard facts you would like to revise: The wars and Medicare part D, the tax cuts, all on the credit card, did amount to $1.2 trillion.

The cost keeps going up too. Recent estimates on veteran spending for their lifetime brings the war bills up to around $4 to $5 trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

A bill our children will be paying.
But thanks for revisionist attempt to blame someone else. That's so Republican.

Peter said...

"What's that word...fili...filibuster, that's it."

The numbers used to justify that claim are the number of cloture votes made during that session of congress (110th). Unfortunately, for you, cloture votes do not determine the presence of a filibuster.

Cloture votes are more and more being used to hurry proceedings regardless of a filibuster threat. Making lots of cloture votes also gives the democrats a nifty number to throw around to prove their narrative that the Republicans are playing obstructionist politics, while they themselves are in fact doing that very same thing.

Once again.... nice try at revisionist history.

Democurmudgeon said...

Obviously that didn't make any sense. Cloture requires 60 votes, and there aren't any. You are insane.

I don't have time for your wise ass trolling remarks. You guys will make excuses forever and still blame Democrats for filibustering their own Senate. My god have you no dignity...?

Peter said...

"Obviously that didn't make any sense. Cloture requires 60 votes, and there aren't any. You are insane. "

First off... I didn't insinuate that the Democrats filibustered their own senate. I said that they used cloture votes to hurry proceedings. They then use the fact that there were cloture votes to create a narrative of filibuster since filibusters are stopped by cloture votes.

This statement proves just how little you know about the way Government works. The 3/5th rule (the 60 votes to which you refer) is not required for motions to end filibusters. A cloture vote to stop a filibuster only requires an initial petition with 16 signatures and can be issued as an interruption to a speech (active filibuster).

The 3/5ths rule is used to invoke cloture more and more often though since it limits an individuals ability to speak on a topic to an hour and limits all debate to 30 hours. It is used to move the docket along without dwelling two long on a topic.

Resorting to diminishing my posts as mere trolling... another democrat tactic to quiet opposition when faced with the facts that disprove your narrative.

Democurmudgeon said...

Do you guys lift the same condescending language for every comments section? You are so smart, I can't keep up. You love to get caught in the "process" because you've got nothing else...no substance, no ideas.

You're a troll. That's not all bad. I don't mind reading this stuff because it informs other readers. Your "resorting to diminishing" BS simply means you lost the argument. The fact that I'm responding to you and that you can post here sure doesn't look like it's a "(D)emocrat(ic)tactic to quiet" the opposition. Whine whine whine.

Huddle in a corner someplace muttering about Benghazi for awhile and you'll feel better.

Peter said...

And once again, a democrat that has failed to win an argument ceases to respond to the points and resorts to personal attacks.

"My substance" was showing that your attribution of a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit to Bush was incorrect. It was in fact the Democrat dominated 110th congress that passed the budget creating the deficit.

You claimed that the filibuster and Bush's veto were used to keep the Dems from passing policy. I proved that the claim was incorrect.

You abandon the discussion and begin to attack my character because you cannot dispute my logic. The only person lacking substance is you. Go cuddle up with Olberman and ask him to tell you a fairy tale about global warming. We will continue your education tomorrow.

Democurmudgeon said...

The budget passed by the Democrats paid for the all the "spending like drunken sailors" bills left to them by Republicans.

Oh wait, you're right, Bush and the Republicans balanced the budget just before the Democrats held congress for about a year and a half. Got me. The Dems spent $1.2 trillion and Bush signed it. The wars, Medicare part D and two tax cuts cost us nothing. So what's all the complaining about?

Again, it wasn't new spending. Nice try. You did prove something, a whole bunch of disconnected points = conservative logic and money mismanagement.

Your grand outrage and damaged character are so tiring but wonderfully characteristic of conservative geniuses that are always right. Thank you for gracing my lowly site of out-of-context facts. Stand with Walker....