To Libs, More Spending Is A Cut

[red states rule]

Only in the world of the loony left, is an increase in spending a cut


Return of the Evil Republican Spending Slashers
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 5, 2007 - 16:42.
"They strike on Capitol Hill. And no domestic program is safe. They're . . . the Evil Republican Spending Slashers!"

Just like "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time, the MSM trots out the reruns of the "Evil Spending Slashers" every time a Republican president proposes to increase entitlement spending by less than some liberals would like.

With the spunky Contessa Brewer hosting in the studio, and reporter Patty Culhane braving the global-warming induced cold wave on the White House lawn, MSNBC ran a classic of the genre this afternoon. At one point the graphic below was displayed, warning of domestic spending "cuts" in a number of programs.

But when you read the fine print, as in this AP article, you find that, for example, the "cut" in Medicare is actually . . . a 6.7% increase. The "cut" is only from a theoretical increase of 7.6% that had apparently been earlier proposed. The article also reveals:

"Bush also calls for reducing Medicaid spending by about $25 billion over five years, which would just slightly dent the more than $1.2 trillion the federal government will spend on health care for the poor over the next five years."

But that didn't stop MSNBC from accusing President Bush, as you'll see in the scroll at the bottom of the first screencap, of "slashing" spending.

The liberal Democrats dutifully play their role in this horror film - with the MSM casting them as the good guys, of course. From the AP article: "Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., described the Medicare and Medicaid proposals as 'declaring war' on the poor."

Pass the popcorn. It's going to be a long budget process.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10627

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah, I guess they've got to slash the hell out of domestic programs so that they can afford to pay for Bush's $249,000,000,000 Iraq spending package! (If you didn't make the connection, that's one billion short of a quarter TRILLION dollars they're requesting to be spent on the Bush/Cheney Iraqi Adventure.)

:boom2: Future generations of US tax payers

[neener]

Thank God we had all those fiscally responsible conservatives in charge the last 12 years!

:lmao:

[Hobbit]

Thank God we had all those fiscally responsible conservatives in charge the last 12 years!

:lmao:

It's maddening. The Republicans spend us into a deficit, and the Democrats criticize them for not spending enough.

[Insein]

It's maddening. The Republicans spend us into a deficit, and the Democrats criticize them for not spending enough.

We're doomed!

[Roopull]

The "spending more" is a tax cut for some reason is a big Washington secret. Sure, those paying attention know about it, but I think the average American - Republican OR Democrat - hasn't a clue. If they predict they'll spend one billion on a program MORE than they did the previous year, but only spend 900K more, it's considered a cut?

The Reps are just as bad, if not worse, than the Dems at this. As neener mentioned, we've had 12 years of Reps running the show... and we've had yearly deficits & a ginormous debt as a reward.


Item number one on the "Contract With America" was fiscal responsibility.

That, my peeps, is what you call BS.

[5stringJeff]

The "spending more" is a tax cut for some reason is a big Washington secret. Sure, those paying attention know about it, but I think the average American - Republican OR Democrat - hasn't a clue. If they predict they'll spend one billion on a program MORE than they did the previous year, but only spend 900K more, it's considered a cut?

The Reps are just as bad, if not worse, than the Dems at this. As neener mentioned, we've had 12 years of Reps running the show... and we've had yearly deficits & a ginormous debt as a reward.


Item number one on the "Contract With America" was fiscal responsibility.

That, my peeps, is what you call BS.

Welcome to DP!

With the Newt/Reagan conservatives who came in after the 1994 elections, fiscal responsibility was a priority. It was after Bush won in 2000 that fiscal responsibility became a priority-in-name-only.

[Roopull]

Well, maybe for some. I've tracked my local reps & they never did a thing that looked fiscally conservative. But yeah, Bush makes Clinton look like a miser. Asstard! Can I say asstard, here? :D

You know, the debt is one thing, but Bush's nonsense about taking FIVE YEARS to eliminate the deficit is just complete BS. The deficit could be eliminated OVERNIGHT.


Oh, and thanks for the welcome.

[5stringJeff]

Asstard! Can I say asstard, here? :D

3 point infraction! :D j/k

[red states rule]

Thank God we had all those fiscally responsible conservatives in charge the last 12 years!

:lmao:

Yea, low unemployment, low inflation, record high for the Dow, steady economic growth, record tax revenues, and the federal deficit cut by 53% over the last three years.

[trobinett]

Yea, low unemployment, low inflation, record high for the Dow, steady economic growth, record tax revenues, and the federal deficit cut by 53% over the last three years.

As rsr points out, nothing to be ashamed of in THAT record.

Course, I'm just a stupid old red neck from Arkansas.:mm:

[Roopull]

As rsr points out, nothing to be ashamed of in THAT record.

Course, I'm just a stupid old red neck from Arkansas.:mm:

Well, except for the fact that we've run up the debt as far as we have, pork spending last year was 29 BILLION dollars, (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006) no meaningful government program has been axed that I know of & the Reps proposed & passed the biggest new entitlement in my 32 jolly years on the planet.

Looking at the booming economy & saying we've done a good job is like saying you made a lot of money last year & forgetting the fact that your credit card bills keep piling up & are outpacing your earning potential...

Don't get me wrong... if I had to choose between the two, I'd go Republican. Right now, though, fiscal responsibility isn't exactly a feather in their cap! Give me Gingrich in charge & a house & senate that will listen to him & you might see me vote Rep, again.

[red states rule]

Well, except for the fact that we've run up the debt as far as we have, pork spending last year was 29 BILLION dollars, (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006) no meaningful government program has been axed that I know of & the Reps proposed & passed the biggest new entitlement in my 32 jolly years on the planet.

Looking at the booming economy & saying we've done a good job is like saying you made a lot of money last year & forgetting the fact that your credit card bills keep piling up & are outpacing your earning potential...

Don't get me wrong... if I had to choose between the two, I'd go Republican. Right now, though, fiscal responsibility isn't exactly a feather in their cap! Give me Gingrich in charge & a house & senate that will listen to him & you might see me vote Rep, again.

I agree. spend is over the top. Both sides are to blame for the pork. One answer is to grant all Presidents the Line Item Veto

Now with Pres Bush's SC appointments, the Line Item Veto should pass through the SC

However, even with the spending, the budget defict is still shrinking.

Why would Dems want to increase taxes?

Hint: It is their nature