How is spending going to decrease with the same GOP leaders that recommend a budget that was higher than?
Topic: Analysis of a research report
July 18, 2019 / By Adrianah Question:
Obama's in charge of the house?
The Republican alternative budget would have cost $3.8 trillion if it was passed. President Obama's budget cost $3.6 trillion.
That is why the Republicans released the cost of their budget a week after they released it.
I know right-wingers have to have a link when it is not something negative about president Obama so I am going to use the conservative group The Heritage Foundation. That way it can’t be dismissed as being a liberal source.
Best Answers: How is spending going to decrease with the same GOP leaders that recommend a budget that was higher than?
Terry | 10 days ago
The reality is, is that the GOP spend money like drunk sailors. They have been consistent in their spending since Reagan. Unfortunately the voter ignores this fact election after election after... and always buys their used car salesman pitch of "Low Taxes and Reduced Spending". And the sad thing is, is that the US doesn't even get jack shyte with the spending spree. All the money goes to subsidies for Wall street, Oil lobbies, Aggriculture lobbies, no bid contracts, slush funds to supporters (bridge to nowhere) in the form of riders and earmarks. They have never used all that money to fix the infrastructure, send a man to mars, solve scientific quandries, reduce the ever increasing stupidity of our education system.. and so on. Voting in republicans is like voting for a reverse Robin Hood. They steal from all of us to give to the upper 2 percent.
👍 228 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? How is spending going to decrease with the same GOP leaders that recommend a budget that was higher than?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Analysis of a research report
Common sense has no clue what budget the republicans as you say submitted. Every budget committee chaired by dems ( going back to 2007 ) wouldn't even read anything ( amendments included ) submitted by the cons. And dems literally did a solo act with the budget the nano second Obama took office. Obama's own dog & pony show over Bamacare totally ignored anything the cons had to say. What was the result.....Pelosi on national TV urges a quick vote so after wards they could read the bill.
1. THEY VOTED
2. THEY PASSED IT
3. OBAMA SIGNED IT
4. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY SAID NO!!!
5. OBAMA AND THE DEMS COULD CARE LESS WHAT THE PEOPLE SAID
6. 1/2 THE COUNTRY'S STATES NOW HAS FEDERAL LAWSUITS FILED TO REPEAL IT
7. OBAMA AND THE DEMS DON'T CARE
8. THE 11/2 ELECTIONS TOOK PLACE
9. OBAMA CALLED IT A DEM "SHELLACKING"
10. THE LIBS STILL DON'T CARE.
Hate to bust your bubble ( not really ) but since you chose the Heritage web article, I'll match it by giving you this as reported by the Heritage group. But pay close attention to the author of the graph. The same CBO that Obama says is correct.
-------->>> GRAB YOUR SOCKS!!! The graph clearly shows how much liberal spending monster dems led by Obama's signature pen don't give a flying rip for anything that has to do with fiscal responsibility.
👍 90 | 👎 4
Well, for one, what the President requests and what the Congress approves or suggests never matches. A better question would be, what is the approved budget?
Wait, Obama requested $3.83 trillion, according to a couple places.
and a very reliable source...
So...Where exactly is this $3.6 trillion budget that Obama suggested? The White House's official report is for $3.83 trillion.
Facts suck when they work against you, don't they?
👍 81 | 👎 -2
In case you haven't noticed, we also have our "lame duck" to contend with! I would say the one difference between any "our spending" nad "your spending" from the time the New Congress is sworn in is that "we" (TEA Party at least), unlike [apparently so far] "you", will hold these people accountable for it and, so far, "you" continue to justify Obama's by pointing out the misdeeds of the "other guys"! To justify one groups spending by pointing the finger at the other group is both non-productive and that it plays into the hands of those doing the spending when "we" both want to see it stopped!
👍 72 | 👎 -8
April 09 is a bit before they truly understood how things were going to play out. At that time you remember, the stimulus was going to kick in at any moment.
👍 63 | 👎 -14
I can't agree entirely on your post, but the gridlock in Congress over the next 2 years will be worst than Clinton/Gingrich most definitely. What a waste for our country.
👍 54 | 👎 -20
Because those leaders have to deal with 63 new members who are more conservative than they are. Are you not concerned that the dems have the same leadership that has led congress to an 11% approval rating?
👍 45 | 👎 -26
With 63 seat GOP you are not going to get a single thing through Congress!
👍 36 | 👎 -32
don't ask those of us who remember the people who drove our nation into the ditch, we remember all the lies the GOP told the previous time they had fallen out of power, and were in the minority, and then watched them happily destroy the economy
👍 27 | 👎 -38
Originally Answered: Why do countries with higher gun restrictions tend to have higher crime rates?
City A - 10 people - guns legal
City b - 10 people - guns illegal
One out of the 10 people is a criminal.
Now where guns are legal. The criminal has to watch for his life too before robbing a house. He has to think about his life being at risk if he enters a house and ends up being shot himself.
Now where guns are illegal. The criminal has nothin to worry about and could easily break into a house as normal citizens wouldn't have guns in their homes.
Well, answer is clear why is it so!