John Boehner and Mitch McConnell Announce Their Agenda For 2015

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I guess we had to elect them to see what the agenda had in it:

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell Announce Their 2015 Agenda | The Federalist Papers

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Seems reasonable to me...


Oh , I forgot, R's and D's are the same, right? (insert purple as needed)

If they focus on that outline - we will definitely make progress.

 

[rambone]

Can't wait for the balanced budget.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Can't wait for the balanced budget.

You're a funny guy.

 

[Expat]

I heard Newt Gingerich talking about the "lack of an agenda" on election evening. He said that both Boehner and McConnell had given speeches where they had outlined their planned agendas in the months prior to the election. The MSM just didn't give any coverage to those speeches.

 

[Expat]

Can't wait for the balanced budget.

Like the last time we had a Republican Congress with a Democrat President?

 

[rambone]

Like the last time we had a Republican Congress with a Democrat President?

Right.... just like that.

Please show me the year that the National Debt stayed the same or went downward. Sorry, Newt Gingrich lied to you.

1994 - $4.692 Trillion
1995 - $4.973 Trillion
1996 - $5.224 Trillion
1997 - $5.413 Trillion
1998 - $5.526 Trillion
1999 - $5.656 Trillion
2000 - $ 5.674 Trillion
2001 - $ 5.807 Trillion
2002 - $ 6.228 Trillion
2003 - $ 6.783 Trillion
2004 - $ 7.379 Trillion

TreasuryDirect.gov: (1950-1999)(2000-2012)

 

[HoughMade]

That's an agenda that looks reasonable to me...mostly at least, but they're pretty vague and who knows what can actually get done.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ram, you can have a balanced budget and be in debt. Paying off the debt will require a surplus budget...imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth were we ever to get to the point where we have money coming in and not expanding and/or creating wealth redistribution programs out of it.

ETA: They claimed balanced budgets a few years ago...I'm not sure I believe them but at least it was at least plausible.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's an agenda that looks reasonable to me...mostly at least, but they're pretty vague and who knows what can actually get done.

I agree. We'll soon find out.

 

[rambone]

Ram, you can have a balanced budget and be in debt. Paying off the debt will require a surplus budget...imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth were we ever to get to the point where we have money coming in and not expanding and/or creating wealth redistribution programs out of it.

ETA: They claimed balanced budgets a few years ago...I'm not sure I believe them but at least it was at least plausible.

If your budget is truly balanced then your outstanding debt should not be growing. Agreed?

The numbers clearly show the National Debt growing larger every single year since 1947. Somehow the Clinton lie of "balanced budgets" still lingers on, decades later.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If your budget is truly balanced then your outstanding debt should not be growing. Agreed?

The numbers clearly show the National Debt growing larger every single year since 1947. Somehow the Clinton lie of "balanced budgets" still lingers on, decades later.

Point taken.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I will throw in a few comments just for grins and giggles.

Our priorities in the 114th Congress will be your priorities. That means addressing head-on many of the most pressing challenges facing the country, including: • The insanely complex tax code that is driving American jobs overseas;

The last time they "simplified" the tax code under Pres Bush they added 1,100 pages. I do hope they make the results match the goal this time.

• Health costs that continue to rise under a hopelessly flawed law that Americans have never supported;

There is little government can do here without adding regulation. To attack health care costs you must attack the current health care system which all politicians are loathe to do. The AMA and AHA are very powerful. To me the best way to bring down costs would be to impose the free market on the health care system. An easy and lightly intrusive way government could do this would be to force all healthcare providers to make the rates for all services public. This would allow healthcare shopping. I doubt I will see this. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma is a good start but hasn't been copied, yet. Or the Federal banning of CON laws that require proof of need to open a new health care facility. These are an unnecessary barrier to entry.
Link: Surgery Center of Oklahoma | Free market-loving, price-displaying, state-of-the-art, AAAHC accredited, doctor owned, multispecialty surgical facility in central OK.
Link: CON-Certificate of Need State Laws

• A savage global terrorist threat that seeks to wage war on every American;

Fearmongering at its finest. Is ISIS bad? Yep. Is it a threat to us? Not really, but Americans do love their koolaid.

• An education system that denies choice to parents and denies a good education to too many children;

So does this mean we're finally going to shrink government, remove federal regulations from the states, and get rid of the Department of Education like Pres Reagan wanted? I doubt it. How about we get the federal government out of the way of the states all together? After all, the states did a fine job on their own before the feds horned in.
Link: Ronald Reagan on Education

• Excessive regulations and frivolous lawsuits that are driving up costs for families and preventing the economy from growing;

Nonsense, somewhat. Lawsuits are frivolous unless it's YOU that was hurt. Any story can seem silly especially the way the media spins it, and some should never go to trial. There is already a mechanism to stop stupid: it's called a JUDGE! Judges do have the power to get rid of silly but most refuse to exercise it. As to the standard issue of tort reform it is the sales pitch of companies who don't like the idea that they may actually be held accountable to the public IF they do wrong.

• An antiquated government bureaucracy ill-equipped to serve a citizenry facing 21st-century challenges, from disease control to caring for veterans;

The problem with the bureaucracy IS the legislature that passes the rules. For example, Medicare Part D is banned by law from bargaining with pharmaceutical companies like the VA can. Also, the nature of our society is very unforgiving to anyone that assumes leadership and makes a mistake. They will always be crucified by the opposing party as a political maneuver in order to gain media coverage. This isn't to say that it isn't justified in some cases, but who wants to be a real leader when under constant fear of reprisal for making a strong decision? For the bureaucrats it is safer to make weak decisions or none at all.
Link: Buying Drugs in Bulk

• A national debt that has Americans stealing from their children and grandchildren, robbing them of benefits that they will never see and leaving them with burdens that will be nearly impossible to repay.

So does this mean we're finally going to make massive cuts to the military??? Out of every dollar spent by the government only $0.20 is discretionary. What eats $0.80 out of every dollar is medicare, medicaid, social security, military spending, interest payments, and some small mandatory spending. The only real place you can make significant cuts is the military, and I doubt the GOP will go near their darling.
Link: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the final analysis I believe the GOP will keep saying words that sound good but will fail to take any really meaningful action! In other words they will talk the talk but won't walk the walk.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Fletch]

If your budget is truly balanced then your outstanding debt should not be growing. Agreed?

The numbers clearly show the National Debt growing larger every single year since 1947. Somehow the Clinton lie of "balanced budgets" still lingers on, decades later.

It's also super-easy to "balance" a budget when you can declare vast swaths of spending "off-budget".

 

[Henry]

My predictions:

The state will spend more each of the next 10 years than it did last fiscal year.
The state will expand in each of the next 10 years.
Liberty will contract in each of the next 10 years.


Doing the same thing over and over leads to the same result.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Two problems. First is presidential veto. Second is needing a 2/3 super-majority to over-ride the veto. Everyone sounds like kids on Christmas morning, rubbing their hands in excitement that it looks like they are getting what they asked Santa for.

 

[Expat]

Two problems. First is presidential veto. Second is needing a 2/3 super-majority to over-ride the veto. Everyone sounds like kids on Christmas morning, rubbing their hands in excitement that it looks like they are getting what they asked Santa for.

Heck, since we are returning to the glorious genteel days of the Senate, the Dems will be able to filibuster and prevent poor Barry from having to veto the bills.

 

[drop45]

If you like your agenda you can keep it.