[Nameplate] A Few Clouds ~ 54°F  
High: 47°F ~ Low: 27°F
Monday, Nov. 24, 2014

Remember When Democrats Shut Down Government During the Bush Administration? Me Neither.

Posted Thursday, March 10, 2011, at 6:27 PM

(Photo)
Reagan speaking on behalf of big business health care and insurance companies as early as the 1960s.
Hello, everyone. This will not be my debut blog entry, unfortunately. However, I've seen a lot of right-wing banter taking over on the site again, so I thought I would get something on the books to sort of stir the pot, if you will. My first real blog will probably center around the problem of literacy and education in America, and the audaciousness of the Republican party to cut funding for education. Sadly, this reminds me of the many failed policies of the Reagan administration, my favorite of course being cutting funding in the mid-80s for low-income education, while at the same time offering tax credits to those families with students in private-schools. I suppose we're all still waiting for that trickle, though, to me it feels more like water torture (winning, anyone?). Anyway, do you remember when the Republicans vowed to never shut down the government again like they did in '95 when the most winningest president of the 20th century was busy dominating international and domestic issues while the elitist Republicans looked on like droopy-eyed armless children? Well, we have another Democratic president who potentially might try to make the world a better place for those off Wall Street, and the hands around the money bags are tightening up once again, never mind any legislation that was passed (and then repealed) protecting against another government-wide shut down that will keep thousands of everyday federal employees from putting in an honest day of work.

Warning, this next bit is not my work. I just find facts to be rather stimulating. I know what you're saying. Actually, but I listen to Rush Limbaugh and he only says things like "The Obama Regime" to conjure up scary images of communist Russia in my mind, in turn forcing me to grasp my Bible even tighter and hate Obama even more blindly than I did before. Sorry. You should leave this blog immediately. Here we listen to anyone who has facts to back up their rants. If not, they can leave. I'll go ahead and preface with this statement because the trolls hunger for anything they can make an argument against that does not regard facts.

So, straight from the depths of rational thinking, I bring you (with sources that are linked, and again before Swift et al make any comments, these sources were simply compiled by moveon.org, not created by moveon.org):

Top 10 Worst Things about the Republicans' Immoral Budget

The Republican budget would:

1. Destroy 700,000 jobs, according to an independent economic analysis.

2. Zero out federal funding for National Public Radio and public television.

3. Cut $1.3 billion from community health centers--which will deprive more than 3 million low-income people of health care over the next few months.

4. Cut nearly a billion dollars in food and health care assistance to pregnant women, new moms, and children.

5. Kick more than 200,000 children out of pre-school by cutting funds for Head Start.

6. Force states to fire 65,000 teachers and aides, dramatically increasing class sizes, thanks to education cuts.

7. Cut some or all financial aid for 9.4 million low- and middle-income college students.

8. Slash $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health, a cut that experts say would "send shockwaves" through cancer research, likely result in cuts to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's research, and cause job losses.

9. End the only federal family planning program, including cutting all federal funding that goes to Planned Parenthood to support cancer screenings and other women's health care.

10. Send 10,000 low-income veterans into homelessness by cutting in half the number of veterans who get housing vouchers this year.

1. "GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs, new report says," The Washington Post, February 28, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206357&id=2642...

2. "GOP budget would cut funding for public broadcasting," The Washington Independent, February 14, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206513&id=2642...

3. "NACHC Statement in Response to the Budget from the House Appropriations Committee," National Association of Community Health Centers website, accessed March 4, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206514&id=2642...

4."Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli.," The New Republic, February 12, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206104&id=2642...

House Republican Spending Cuts Target Programs For Children And Pregnant Women

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206566&id=2642...

5. "Obama and the GOP's Spending Cuts: Where's the Outrage?" Mother Jones, February 18, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206569&id=2642...

6. Ibid.

7. "Deficit Reduction on the Backs of the Most Vulnerable," Center for American Progress, March 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206518&id=2642... (PDF)

8. "The GOP Budget and Cancer--Why New Research Is at Risk," Politics Daily, February 27, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206515&id=2642...

"Republican Budget Cuts at Heart of Medical Research: Albert Hunt," Bloomberg, February 20, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206516&id=2642...

"Durbin: Cuts to NIH put research jobs at risk," Business Week, February 28, 2011

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financial...

9. "GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206105&id=2642...

10. "House GOP Spending Cuts Would Prevent 10,000 Low-Income Veterans From Receiving Housing Assistance," Think Progress, March 1, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206517&id=2642...

NOTE*** The above links were compiled by MoveOn.org. They are not created by the website. Visiting the links will allow users to access the original location of the information quoted. I.E. The Washington Post, etc.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

1. Moveon.org is about as far left as you can get! Therefore, it is a liberal biased source.

2. I really don't care what is posted against the GOP since I'm a Christian first, Prolife/paleo-conservative second, and vote for only pro-Constitution/pro-life Republicans.

3. Actually, what do you think about my newest blog entry? You'll notice, I don't watch Fox News and seldom listen to those talkshow hosts you liberals love to hate and smear.

-- Posted by swift on Thu, Mar 10, 2011, at 2:33 PM

By the way, welcome to the blogosphere! I look forward to friendly dialogue with you, even if you do hate us conservatives.

-- Posted by swift on Thu, Mar 10, 2011, at 2:35 PM

Ron Paul for president!

-- Posted by swift on Thu, Mar 10, 2011, at 2:38 PM

Welcome Actually, just ignore swift as I do. Looking forward to your input and wish you the very best.

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Thu, Mar 10, 2011, at 5:10 PM

Yes, Swift, you are correct that MoveOn.org is a liberal organization. However, they did not create the above listed statistics. The links that are posted are simply compiled by moveon.org, thus the addition of their website in the citation. If you click on the page, you'll be redirected to other organizations like the Washington Post, etc.

Thanks, Dexterite. Glad to be here.

-- Posted by Actually on Thu, Mar 10, 2011, at 6:26 PM

Welcome aboard Actually!

-- Posted by greer958 on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 8:51 AM

ALL the data vetted by moveon.org? Really? OK, I'll start with the first item:

The Republican budget would:

1. Destroy 700,000 jobs, according to an independent economic analysis.

The link takes you to the Washington Post. According to the Post:

a. The Report cited in the headlines was written by Moody's Analytics. This is one of the companies that gave mortgage-backed securities a AAA (nearly risk-free!) rating until late 2007. If this doesn't shake your confidence in their "analytics", I suggest you research the timeline of the housing debacle.

b. The Moody's report was cited as agreeing with a report issued earlier that give dire consequences for the republican budget. This report was written by the other beacon of financial soundness and ethics, Goldman Sachs.

Of course, this is just the first point. . . but time is short, so I'll let the other 9 go for now. By the way, Actually, I think you should rest easy about the cuts: The "cuts" you speak of are almost entirely effective in later years. Years in which we will have an entirely new budget. Republicans talk of cuts to get votes, but their budgets never seem to get to the year in which something is ACTUALLY cut. So rest easy.

-- Posted by Zam on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 1:42 PM

Yes Actually; just ignore my comments. Only liberals are educated.

Actually, your god is government; your religion is secular humanism. This is why you call spending cuts immoral. In your liberal thinking, anyone who disgrees with you is a right wing extremist. Bearcat72 is completely right in his post on the "On the Street forum where he calls you a "very typical narcissistic liberal". We conservatives care about cil rights which is why I re-posted the comment I made on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You liberals love to play the race card. Well guess what? We conservatives are NOT racists. All the government spending on social programs, beginning with the New Deal, has NOT eliminated poverty. It has never gone under nine percent.

-- Posted by swift on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 3:43 PM

Fair enough, Zam. All good points. Now pay attention. If you read my blog, I simply posted these statistics to stir up some debate. I'm not endorsing moveon.org, nor am I claiming these numbers are entirely objective. I knew good and well that by posting the moveon.org links they would instantly be attacked for being liberal-biased. That is fine with me, as this publication and the blogs posted lack any liberal points of view. Now then, you make a good effort at trying to defame the source of these statistics. You do, however, fail to mention anything about the author of these report, Mark Zandi. The article clearly states the he is a registered Democrat who advised John McCain, and also dealt with both parties during the creation of the stimulus. I am very well aware of the housing debacle. I know it is a favorite bit used by the right, too. However, the point is that Zandi predicts bad news for BOTH parties. The relevance of these numbers are especially significant for the G.O.P. as they have been elected promising economic growth. I don't know how causing more people to lose their jobs will result in much growth for the middle-class American. Ah, I'll leave my comments about Reaganomics here for another time.

My bottom line is this, though. The Republicans are risking working hours for many government employees because of a potential shutdown thanks to their unwillingness to compromise on their already faulty budget. I'm not going to argue the salvation of Goldman Sachs or the Democratic ties to the group. It doesn't exist. However, I don't want to devote this blog to condemning every single leader over their practices. I'll stick to condemning the Republican party, especially since they now have more power and should be delivering on their campaign promises. If their delivery results in lost jobs, funding, and the like, then I hope people understand what they're voting for when they support the G.O.P. What's more, the blatant hypocrisy and blind hatred that is promoted by the Republican party garners the need for this attention. The ideological differences between the two parties should be explained to voters. I want to try to do that. Again, this post wasn't anything of significance. I'm working on getting my first original post regarding education funding under the Reagan administration up sometime soon. I want to analyze Reagan's policies then, as I feel they are very similar to the Republican rhetoric we are now hearing.

Nonetheless, thanks for posting. I hope to see you around more often. I appreciate the thoughts. I can't say that I'm going to classify you as winning (yet), but you certainly aren't one of the trolls.

-- Posted by Actually on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 3:56 PM

Swift, I'm not ignoring your comments. Also, you and Bearcat72 missed the joke on my post about Bearcat72 dreaming about me. Here, I'll explain it. Every single person who posts anything liberal on this website is accused of being me in disguise. This is because I changed screen-names over four years ago, and created one joking name of justinbieber. So, it was a joke. I figure it was fair as every single post I make results in Bearcat72 barraging me with personal attacks and insults instead of factual and intellectual debate.

Now then, any post I make with links has to do with legitimate statistics or facts. I do not post websites that I find to be interesting or that agree with my ideological views. That's why I don't have time to click on your links. Also, I don't have time to read your blog. I don't agree with you, and I don't hardly have the time to post on this blog like I would LIKE to. So, I will focus on getting my views out. Take them or leave them.

However, I will ask that you refrain from joining with Bearcat72 on the angry attacks, name-calling, etc. If you can only argue in that way, please do not bother posting here. I would much rather have someone like Zam post thoughtful insight than some fanatic ramble on about my "secular humanism." By the way, you don't know what my religious views are, so please do not assume that because I do not practice rampant consumerism that I do not believe in a God.

Finally, your argument about civil rights is moot. While I have alluded to the racism that exists in the right-wing in the past, I have not done so since this last round of debate has started up. I have simply pointed out that an increase in funding for education is necessary for the poor, not a cut in it. If you consider it a coincidence that the poorest of our country are minorities, so be it. You're right about the voting record on the Civil Rights Act. The Southern Democrats of that time are no longer in power, however. Further, most of the South now votes Republican. I don't think the Democratic party is now voting against the Civil Rights for anyone. If anything, they're more proactive for equal rights for everyone than the homophobic Republican party is. Then again, your party also likes to lie to people so they can secretly tape their comments and cause them to lose their jobs just so they can prove they aren't hateful, bigoted, etc.

Good day.

-- Posted by Actually on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 4:08 PM

So, if you'd like to address the information posted above, please feel free to do so!

Also, if anyone is interested in watching two interesting films, I recommend the following:

The Corporation:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/118171/manufac...

Manufacturing Consent:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/118171/manufac...

By the way, yes one of these films features Noam Chomsky. I know. Liberal. However, he is quick to condemn the actions taken by Jimmy Carter regarding East Timor, arm sales that should indeed be condemned. So, I always argue that Chomsky is objective. I feel he is in this film, as well.

-- Posted by Actually on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 4:12 PM

Actually, what about the Right to Life for the unborn? When you refer to the GOP, why do say, "your party"? The Republican Party is NOT my party! I'm a conservative, and I voted almost straight Constitution Party in '08. I was vice-chairman of the Prohibition Party from '03 to 'o9. I still consider myself a Prohibitionist. That being said, traditional Judeo-Christian moral views have never been promoted by the Democratic Party. Anyway, keep blogging, Actually! In looking at my list of eleven blog entries, six are on politics. Five are on non political topics. So my next blog entry will not be political. I'm checking your newest entry even though I don't go to movies.

-- Posted by swift on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 4:33 PM

As you stated, Actually, you posted the list and the moveon.org source as a means to get a response . . . and you did.

As to trying to "defame" the sources: Defame is definitely not the right word. Discredit is probably even too strong. Let me restate: I'm not comfortable basing my belief on the success/failure of Republican budget cuts on predictions made by financial companies who's actions, according to both parties, brought the country to the brink of economic disaster.

On a different subject,

"The ideological differences between the two parties should be explained to voters. I want to try to do that. "

Now THAT is should be an interesting post! I look forward to it.

-- Posted by Zam on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 10:13 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Knowledge equals freedom!