"giving certain specifics..."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-01-2010
"giving certain specifics..."
26
Sat, 07-17-2010 - 5:37pm

Friday, July 16th, 2010

In laying out his case for why the GOP should have a minimal platform for the November elections, a New York Republican has given ammunition to critics who say the party knows its policies wouldn't be popular if they were put under the microscope.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told a radio show Thursday that the GOP should focus on its strategy of being against President Barack Obama's policies, but shouldn't give too many specifics on its own policies -- or those policies could be used against them.

GOP strategy should be "a combination of being against what Obama is for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for," King told the Bill Bennett Radio Show. "Having said that, I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue."

Critics are seizing on King's comments as perhaps the most concrete evidence that Republicans fear that American voters would turn against them if they looked into the specifics of how the GOP plans to address the economic crisis and other issues facing the country.

"Deliberately hiding one's ideas for fear of examination is not only cowardice, it's indicative of a party that suspects its own beliefs would be rejected by the public," writes Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly.

Alex Seitz-Wald at ThinkProgress, who first reported on King's comments, suggests that King seems to be overlooking the fact that policy agendas are exactly what election campaigns should be about.

"n agenda should be a campaign issue — the most important issue," Seitz-Wald writes. "But King’s political calculation reflects the strategies of several Republican candidates, like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul, to hide from the mainstream media, lest they accidentally reveal more of their extreme agenda."

Benen points out that some conservative commentators have been criticizing the GOP's vague political platform in this election cycle. He points to an article by Jonah Goldberg that applauds the GOP for "regrowing its spine" but adds "that spine is only valuable if you use it for something."

In an opinion piece last month, conservative writer David Frum said that simply opposing Obama's policies would not be enough.

"A positive agenda may be more necessary than usual this year, if only as a way to inoculate Republicans against Democratic attacks on an anti-Medicare, anti-Social Security secret agenda," Frum wrote.

The following audio was broadcast on The Bill Bennett Radio Show, July 15, 2010, and uploaded to the Web by ThinkProgress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6DLJsXHZpg .

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0716/king-republican-agenda-hidden/

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2007
Sat, 07-17-2010 - 10:31pm

I wonder if he means specifics like these......


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2010
Sat, 07-17-2010 - 10:45pm

Plenty of misrepresentations going on there.


He talks about s surplus that never evisted and then blames the floowing year's shortfall on Bush even though the economy was in a free-fall before Clinton ever left office.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Sat, 07-17-2010 - 11:04pm
What do the Republicans have anyway besides tax cuts and deregulation? That is their answer to just about everything to do with the economy. We've heard it many times before.

~OPAL~

~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2007
Sun, 07-18-2010 - 12:30pm

He talks about s surplus that never evisted and then blames the floowing year's shortfall on Bush even though the economy was in a free-fall before Clinton ever left office.


Where is the proof on that? I keep hearing it, but yet everything I've researched, says otherwise.


Also, how did Bush pay for his tax cuts to the wealthily and his two wars? Do you know?


TIA


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2010
Sun, 07-18-2010 - 1:18pm

"Where is the proof on that? I keep hearing it, but yet everything I've researched, says otherwise."


My numbers come from several sources and the story is long and involved. 99% of what happened can be be summed up by the political use of Social Security funds. Historically, Social Security was an off-buget animal since any money taken in by the program is a debt owed to the people paying in, not an asset. That changed when Johnson got into office. His New Deal spending was out of control, so to cover it up changed social security to an on-budget program. The SS surpluses helped to cover up his deficits. Reagan, being substancially more honest, reversed that policy and properly returned ss to an off-budget program. That explains the 'sudden appearance' of so-called republic deficits liberals like to roll out. That policy of leaving ss off-budget remained until Clinton came to office and wanted to claim he had budget surpluses, so he once again changed ss to an on-budget item where its remained.


In short, Clinton's

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Sun, 07-18-2010 - 2:39pm

~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-26-2009
Sun, 07-18-2010 - 3:31pm

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html


February 3, 2008

Updated: February 11, 2008






Q:


During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?



A:

Chrissy


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2010
Sun, 07-18-2010 - 3:35pm

" led to reductions in the "debt held by the public""


Too bad SS bonds are not held by the public so are not included in those figures. SS bonds are held by the Fed and only the Fed. Is there a reason you use a chart that excluded counting much of the government's debt?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2010
Sun, 07-18-2010 - 3:50pm

Political gamesmanship from a liberal group.


Budgets are cash flow statements. Debt is balance sheet.


Borrowing more money than you spend as Clinton did is no great feat.


As I mentioned. SS was the lion's share.


The second biggest portion was Fed interest policy. You may recall concerns over how Clinton purchased long-term debt and reissued new low-interest short-term debt.



iVillage Member
Registered: 05-26-2009
Sun, 07-18-2010 - 6:55pm

Can you please provide your source(s)?


Chrissy


Pages