Network News touting Dem momentum?

[remote controller 143]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-10-26-1Apoll26_ST_N.htm

 

"One week before Election Day, Democrats face a record-setting "enthusiasm gap" that positions energized Republicans to score sweeping victories in next week's congressional elections, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds."

 

I'm gonna take Wednesday off and be a Democrat. DO NOTHING AND GET PAID! Tuesday Night is gonna be fun!

[The Elevator Killer 659]

The great thing about knocking any party out of control is that it derails whatever evil plan that particular party is trying to employee.

 

[drobeski 3,061]

The great thing about knocking any party out of control is that it derails whatever evil plan that particular party is trying to employee.

 

The same evil plan we see unraveling in Europe, yet the simpleton democrats here and across the country can't see this administrations policies are proving to be utter failures right before thier own eyes.

 

Seriously they are that partisan.....its pretty pathetic. Their parents should each be punched in the face for failing so miserably.

[NorthernVike 2,088]

The same evil plan we see unraveling in Europe, yet the simpleton democrats here and across the country can't see this administrations policies are proving to be utter failures right before thier own eyes.

 

Seriously they are that partisan.....its pretty pathetic. Their parents should each be punched in the face for failing so miserably.

[MDC 7,678]

The same evil plan we see unraveling in Europe, yet the simpleton democrats here and across the country can't see this administrations policies are proving to be utter failures right before thier own eyes.

 

It's almost like some of you guys were in a coma from 2000-2008.

[drobeski 3,061]

It's almost like some of you guys were in a coma from 2000-2008.

You mean when the bush administration forced healthcare down our throats, took over the auto industries etc.? Do you mean then dummy ?

[MDC 7,678]

You mean when the bush administration forced healthcare down our throats, took over the auto industries etc.? Do you mean then dummy ?

 

No, I mean like when they doubled the federal debt and let terrorists blow up the WTC and kill thousands of Americans cause they suck at national security, then launched two wars and focked them both up.

 

That's what I mean you no-neck having retard.

[drobeski 3,061]

No, I mean like when they doubled the federal debt and let terrorists blow up the WTC and kill thousands of Americans cause they suck at national security, then launched two wars and focked them both up.

 

That's what I mean you no-neck having retard.

Oh those are the policies that destroying the economies of Europe, gotcha.

[MDC 7,678]

Oh those are the policies that destroying the economies of Europe, gotcha.

 

wtf are you blathering about, Munchkin?

 

The Great Decider's policies of letting terrorists blow up skyscrapers and botching wars against unrelated 3rd parties didn't work out so well. Maybe you should give the new guy a term before declaring the end of the world?

 

[swamp dog 0]

No, I mean like when they doubled the federal debt and let terrorists blow up the WTC and kill thousands of Americans cause they suck at national security, then launched two wars and focked them both up.

 

That's what I mean you no-neck having retard.

 

 

...and yes, health care overhaul in the form of the drug/pharm massive overhaul that was paid with an IOU.

 

lol...these dumbass right-wing hacks on here really are in denial. jesus christ. the sad thing is those dumbfocks would vote for bush again in a heartbeat.

 

oh, and it's fox news saying the most recent polls show dems with momentum--not the liberal media. that doesn't mean the dems aren't going to lose a bunch of seats...but the overall number is in serious flux right now.

 

the righties have had unreal expectations for months now. i think they're going to be disappointed at the size of the party after planning it for months and months and months and fantasizing how wonderful it's going to be. no way to live up to those expectations.

[swamp dog 0]

You mean when the bush administration forced healthcare down our throats, took over the auto industries etc.? Do you mean then dummy ?

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2134456/

 

you dumbass. and the tarp/bailout shiat was the birth child of bush's administration also.

 

double dumbass.

[Reality 3,121]

...and yes, health care overhaul in the form of the drug/pharm massive overhaul that was paid with an IOU.

 

lol...these dumbass right-wing hacks on here really are in denial. jesus christ. the sad thing is those dumbfocks would vote for bush again in a heartbeat.

 

oh, and it's fox news saying the most recent polls show dems with momentum--not the liberal media. that doesn't mean the dems aren't going to lose a bunch of seats...but the overall number is in serious flux right now.

 

the righties have had unreal expectations for months now. i think they're going to be disappointed at the size of the party after planning it for months and months and months and fantasizing how wonderful it's going to be. no way to live up to those expectations.

 

LoL swampy.. We got it the first time brotha..

[swamp dog 0]

LoL swampy.. We got it the first time brotha..

 

it was so nice i posted twice

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No, I mean like when they doubled the federal debt

 

 

If by "they" you mean the Pelosi controlled Demwit House of Representatives, then yes, I would have to agree with you.

(CNSNews.com) - When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

 

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

 

Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

 

At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).

 

Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe

[IMMensaMind 462]

It's almost like some of you guys were in a coma from 2000-2008.

 

I was objecting then as well. It escaped the attention of the media.

 

I still find this sort of response from Democrats utterly puzzling though: why would you bring this up as some sort of defense, when you refuse to vote out a continuation of these policies - supercharged, to be sure - in the present Administration?

 

That's the part that is baffling..

[rholio 339]

oh, and it's fox news saying the most recent polls show dems with momentum--not the liberal media.

 

That makes sense... historically, when one side has a projected win too early, their voter turnout suffers. If the talk up the dems chances, they get more votes for the republicans.

[swamp dog 0]

That makes sense... historically, when one side has a projected win too early, their voter turnout suffers. If the talk up the dems chances, they get more votes for the republicans.

 

so you're saying fox news isn't fair and balanced?

[swamp dog 0]

I was objecting then as well. It escaped the attention of the media.

 

I still find this sort of response from Democrats utterly puzzling though: why would you bring this up as some sort of defense, when you refuse to vote out a continuation of these policies - supercharged, to be sure - in the present Administration?

 

That's the part that is baffling..

 

1) 18+ months isn't enough time to turn around almost a decade of bush ineptness.

 

2) because 18+ months isn't enough time, it's illogical to knee-jerk back to the bush era.

 

this should make sense to you. but then again, you voted to have palin one heartbeat away from the presidency.

[MDC 7,678]

I was objecting then as well. It escaped the attention of the media.

 

I don't remember ever seeing you here before about a month ago.

 

I still find this sort of response from Democrats utterly puzzling though: why would you bring this up as some sort of defense, when you refuse to vote out a continuation of these policies - supercharged, to be sure - in the present Administration?

 

That's the part that is baffling..

 

It's not that baffling: The overwhelming majority of the debt is due to Bush's policies and the tax revenue shortfall due to the recession.

 

We are slowly heading toward economic recovery - why would I change course now? So that Republicans could re-institute the failed policies that got is into this mess in the first place?

 

There you go.

[swamp dog 0]

If by "they" you mean the Pelosi controlled Demwit House of Representatives, then yes, I would have to agree with you.

 

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe

 

the president (in this case bush) proposes the budget. it's the same reason clinton deserves the credit for the surplus during his terms.

 

but you keep sucking on bush's (small) schlong like you've been doing for nearly a decade.

[swamp dog 0]

I don't remember ever seeing you here before about a month ago.

 

 

 

It's not that baffling: The overwhelming majority of the debt is due to Bush's policies and the tax revenue shortfall due to the recession.

 

We are slowly heading toward economic recovery - why would I change course now? So that Republicans could re-institute the failed policies that got is into this mess in the first place?

 

There you go.

 

 

really, it's all good. if the gop takes over by storm--they have exactly 18 months (just like obama) to completely fix everything--or out they go again (key word again) in 2012.

 

the clock is ticking. i think it'll be rather fun to sit on my ass with my arms folded like this righty dipshiats have been doing for the past couple dozen months and demand all problems get fixed or else.

[phillybear 366]

so you're saying fox news isn't fair and balanced?

 

Fox is far and away certainly more fair than the assh0les in charge at CNN (Rick Sanchez) and NPR (Juan Williams)

[IMMensaMind 462]

1) 18+ months isn't enough time to turn around almost a decade of bush ineptness.

 

2) because 18+ months isn't enough time, it's illogical to knee-jerk back to the bush era.

 

Erm......that's like trying to turn around a fire by pouring gasoline on it. Please explain how what Bush was doing spending billions/trillions is going to be markedly reversed by Obama spending trillions/quadrillions.

 

this should make sense to you. but then again, you voted to have palin one heartbeat away from the presidency.

 

Whereas - right now - Biden is. Your point?

[phillybear 366]

really, it's all good. if the gop takes over by storm--they have exactly 18 months (just like obama) to completely fix everything--or out they go again (key word again) in 2012.

 

the clock is ticking. i think it'll be rather fun to sit on my ass with my arms folded like this righty dipshiats have been doing for the past couple dozen months and demand all problems get fixed or else.

 

Your analogy is retarded. The Democrats control everything in the White House and Congress. They can do whatever they want.

 

When the Republicans and Independents take control of the House and Senate, it will be gridlock. Obama will veto until he gets carpal tunnel. You can't fix everything with gridlock. But the good news is that it will limit the damage that lunkhead Obama can do.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

the president (in this case bush) proposes the budget. it's the same reason clinton deserves the credit for the surplus during his terms.

 

 

 

All spending bills originate in the House.

 

Edumacate yourself, Hillbilly.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I don't remember ever seeing you here before about a month ago.

 

Political opinions that shape this country take place outside of this forum. Conservatives didn't like Bush's spending policies either.

 

It's not that baffling: The overwhelming majority of the debt is due to Bush's policies and the tax revenue shortfall due to the recession.

 

The debt is due to spending. A revenue shortfall affects the budget deficit. We're talking about two entirely different things.

 

The debt has exploded under Obama. Obama had the power to prevent that; denying that is fruitless. Bush is primarily responsible for TARP - which will largely be repaid - and also spend crazily in his own right (though he had the "benefit" of a Dem Congress, which was equally to blame). The rest? And ObamaCare? Huge boondoggle.

 

More important: it isn't just the debt being created; it's the policies that damage the economic engine this country depends upon to pay debt. He's killing that engine through one anti-business policy after another.

 

We are slowly heading toward economic recovery - why would I change course now? So that Republicans could re-institute the failed policies that got is into this mess in the first place?

 

There you go.

 

If this is recovery, I don't want to be a patient in a hospital where you work. That's like saying a quadrapeligic has recovered because he moved a finger.

 

There is no recovery; you're just regurgitating a Dem talking point. There is no evidence of a recovery; there are indications of the opposite.

[swamp dog 0]

Your analogy is retarded. The Democrats control everything in the White House and Congress. They can do whatever they want.

 

When the Republicans and Independents take control of the House and Senate, it will be gridlock. Obama will veto until he gets carpal tunnel. You can't fix everything with gridlock. But the good news is that it will limit the damage that lunkhead Obama can do.

 

perception is the reality. the public will view congress--and in this case gop majority congress as not getting anything done and the gop will get thrown out again in 2012.

 

i'm not the one running on wild promises of repealing and REPLACING and CREATING JOBS--the gop is doing that.

 

you're mad (as usual) at the messenger.

 

let's have 2 more years of gridlock--and then let's see you try to use your above logic to the voters in 2012 in order to get gop/teabaggers re-elected.

 

yeah, let's see how that works for ya

 

the very sword used to kill dems this election cycle will be used to kill gop and teabag candidates in 2012. history has shown this repeatedly. yet, you dipshiats keep thinking you're reinventing the wheel or something here in 2010.

[swamp dog 0]

All spending bills originate in the House.

 

Edumacate yourself, Hillbilly.

 

the president is the true architect--stop your technical bs. we're not talking about how technically things work on paper--we're talking about how politics gets done. and the prez has, is, and always will be the point person on that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

stop your technical bs.

 

 

Yeah, once again that silly ol' Constitution and it's "technical bs" gets in the way of your lib talking points.

[phillybear 366]

perception is the reality. the public will view congress--and in this case gop majority congress as not getting anything done and the gop will get thrown out again in 2012.

 

i'm not the one running on wild promises of repealing and REPLACING and CREATING JOBS--the gop is doing that.

 

you're mad (as usual) at the messenger.

 

let's have 2 more years of gridlock--and then let's see you try to use your above logic to the voters in 2012 in order to get gop/teabaggers re-elected.

 

yeah, let's see how that works for ya

 

the very sword used to kill dems this election cycle will be used to kill gop and teabag candidates in 2012. history has shown this repeatedly. yet, you dipshiats keep thinking you're reinventing the wheel or something here in 2010.

 

Gridlock will continue when Obama gets landslided out of office by a dead ferret or any other opponent thrown out there against him. The Repub/TeaParty/Independents might lost seats and maybe the Senate, but they will gain the WH again and we might get gridlock again. Maybe, just maybe, both parties could figure out how to work together to fix stuff. Ah, who am i kidding? Yeah, right.

 

Also, if you keep informing that voting public that all your ideas are being vetoed, that will loom very badly for Obama in 2 years.

[swamp dog 0]

Gridlock will continue when Obama gets landslided out of office by a dead ferret or any other opponent thrown out there against him. The Repub/TeaParty/Independents might lost seats and maybe the Senate, but they will gain the WH again and we might get gridlock again. Maybe, just maybe, both parties could figure out how to work together to fix stuff. Ah, who am i kidding? Yeah, right.

 

Also, if you keep informing that voting public that all your ideas are being vetoed, that will loom very badly for Obama in 2 years.

 

actually, history favors obama winning the 2012 election. look it up.

[swamp dog 0]

Yeah, once again that silly ol' Constitution and it's "technical bs" gets in the way of your lib talking points.

 

please don't hurt yourself even more by trying to tackle the constitution.

[MDC 7,678]

Political opinions that shape this country take place outside of this forum. Conservatives didn't like Bush's spending policies either.

 

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it that you spent the years between 2000-2008 complaining about Bush at some other site and randomly decided in 2010 that FFT would be the place to air your political grievances from now on. Amazing, how many "conservatives" suddenly morphed into fiscal watchdogs immediately after the '08 election.

 

The debt is due to spending. A revenue shortfall affects the budget deficit. We're talking about two entirely different things.

 

The debt has exploded under Obama. Obama had the power to prevent that; denying that is fruitless. Bush is primarily responsible for TARP - which will largely be repaid - and also spend crazily in his own right (though he had the "benefit" of a Dem Congress, which was equally to blame). The rest? And ObamaCare? Huge boondoggle.

 

The new spending Obama has enacted is limited pretty much to TARP, the stimulus and HCR.

 

TARP has been largely repaid and is mostly a success.

 

You can argue that the stimulus wasn't necessary but that puts you at odds with nearly every economist. Most of them said it should have been larger.

 

Healthcare reform was projected at around $1 trillion over ten years and offset mostly by cuts to Medicare. Has this had any affect on the deficit yet?

 

The debt you are complaining about is mostly due to spending on wars Obama didn't start and a revenue shortfall due to tax cuts he didn't enact and a recession he didn't cause.

 

More important: it isn't just the debt being created; it's the policies that damage the economic engine this country depends upon to pay debt. He's killing that engine through one anti-business policy after another.

 

If this is recovery, I don't want to be a patient in a hospital where you work. That's like saying a quadrapeligic has recovered because he moved a finger.

 

There is no recovery; you're just regurgitating a Dem talking point. There is no evidence of a recovery; there are indications of the opposite.

 

I guess we'll see. I expect the economy will be in full recovery within the next year despite protests from blogs.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

You can argue that the stimulus wasn't necessary but that puts you at odds with nearly every economist. Most of them said it should have been larger.

 

 

[remote controller 143]

actually, history favors obama winning the 2012 election. look it up.

Good luck on that. We've never had a guy fock up this bad either. train wreck! Ain't it great?

[rholio 339]

Good luck on that. We've never had a guy fock up this bad either. train wreck! Ain't it great?

 

I think we have... he got re-elected, too. Even if you think Obama is the worst ever, there's plenty of bad, two-term presidents. All the Dems need is for the Republicans to come up with a candidate as bad as Kerry, and it could easily happen.

 

Really hoping to see Newt get the nomination... helped get things on track once, hopefully could do it again.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it that you spent the years between 2000-2008 complaining about Bush at some other site and randomly decided in 2010 that FFT would be the place to air your political grievances from now on. Amazing, how many "conservatives" suddenly morphed into fiscal watchdogs immediately after the '08 election.

 

Hold on - I guess I'll just have to take your word that you were even listening to Conservatives complaining about the ridiculous level of spending that Bush enacted (Medicare RX? Bailouts? TARP? WTF?)

 

Most of Bush's run away spending was in the last half of his presidency. I've always been a fiscal Conservative, and those Conservatives with which I converse on the topic are in general agreement, and seem to always have been. Our voice hasn't exactly been magnified by the media, you know. Even those sources that you consider right of you aren't anywhere near where we are in fiscal terms - and that's exactly why the Tea Party sprung up: for magnification of that voice.

 

We're being heard now.

 

The new spending Obama has enacted is limited pretty much to TARP, the stimulus and HCR.

 

You're sort of correct - but only because Obama has literally placed so incredibly much under the auspices of stimulus, and so much else in the Health Care Reform Bill. Don't pooh-pooh ObamaCare: that's massive.

 

TARP has been largely repaid and is mostly a success.

 

Let's not play funny money: some TARP has been repaid using TARP itself. I do not call TARP a success; I call it accounting churning designed to further inculcate US Government into the private sector, using our own money.

 

Healthcare reform was projected at around $1 trillion over ten years and offset mostly by cuts to Medicare. Has this had any affect on the deficit yet?

 

It largely doesn't go into practice until 2014. As for "largely offset" - don't make me laugh. That will not happen. ObamaCare has already resulted in a massive spike in health care costs for business.

 

This is not an unintended consequence. I believe that Obama wants a single payer pure Socialist health care system (the kind that is failing across the globe). In order to do this, he must first cripple private health insurance - and in order to do that, he must penalize businesses and citizens for using private insurance. This is how he's doing that, and it's working.

 

And stupid people fell for it. They number about 1/3 of our population: the other 2/3rds want ObamaCare repealed/defunded.

 

Obama's goal wasn't to fix health care. Obama's goal was to break it.

 

The debt you are complaining about is mostly due to spending on wars Obama didn't start and a revenue shortfall due to tax cuts he didn't enact and a recession he didn't cause.

 

What I'm complaining about is stupid debt (government programs and pork) and horrible tax policy (on business and personal income) and bad regulations (cap and trade, ie) that harm our economic engine, and our ability to pay debtservice.

 

I guess we'll see. I expect the economy will be in full recovery within the next year despite protests from blogs.

 

Of course you expect that - you are a Keynesian (even if you don't know what that means, and even if you don't know how harmful and failed that policy has been). Your opinion about full recovery is in the vast minority. Very few, if anyone - believes that. Those that do largely base that hope upon what happens in a week, btw: hardly your basis of belief.

[MDC 7,678]

Hold on - I guess I'll just have to take your word that you were even listening to Conservatives complaining about the ridiculous level of spending that Bush enacted (Medicare RX? Bailouts? TARP? WTF?)

 

Actually yeah. I remember posting several articles from the Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, etc. about Bush's spending. Nobody here much seemed to care. I don't remember ever seeing you here before about a month ago.

 

Most of Bush's run away spending was in the last half of his presidency. I've always been a fiscal Conservative, and those Conservatives with which I converse on the topic are in general agreement, and seem to always have been. Our voice hasn't exactly been magnified by the media, you know. Even those sources that you consider right of you aren't anywhere near where we are in fiscal terms - and that's exactly why the Tea Party sprung up: for magnification of that voice.

 

We're being heard now.

 

We're getting off topic now, but the Tea Party are mostly fringe right Republicans dressed up as social conservatives. That's why most of their favored candidates are mostly evangelicals and culture warriors, not small government Constitutionalists as claimed.

 

You're sort of correct - but only because Obama has literally placed so incredibly much under the auspices of stimulus, and so much else in the Health Care Reform Bill. Don't pooh-pooh ObamaCare: that's massive.

 

Let's not play funny money: some TARP has been repaid using TARP itself. I do not call TARP a success; I call it accounting churning designed to further inculcate US Government into the private sector, using our own money.

 

It largely doesn't go into practice until 2014. As for "largely offset" - don't make me laugh. That will not happen. ObamaCare has already resulted in a massive spike in health care costs for business.

 

This is not an unintended consequence. I believe that Obama wants a single payer pure Socialist health care system (the kind that is failing across the globe). In order to do this, he must first cripple private health insurance - and in order to do that, he must penalize businesses and citizens for using private insurance. This is how he's doing that, and it's working.

 

And stupid people fell for it. They number about 1/3 of our population: the other 2/3rds want ObamaCare repealed/defunded.

 

What I'm complaining about is stupid debt (government programs and pork) and horrible tax policy (on business and personal income) and bad regulations (cap and trade, ie) that harm our economic engine, and our ability to pay debtservice.

 

All I'm talking about here is the debt. And with your reply above, even you seem to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of deficit since Obama took office is not due to any new programs and mostly due to the bad economy and spending enacted under Bush's watch.

 

Of course you expect that - you are a Keynesian (even if you don't know what that means, and even if you don't know how harmful and failed that policy has been). Your opinion about full recovery is in the vast minority. Very few, if anyone - believes that. Those that do largely base that hope upon what happens in a week, btw: hardly your basis of belief.

 

You make a lot of assumptions.

[Mike Honcho 5,360]

Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.http://www.cnsnews.c...lion-speaker-pe

 

 

Hey, that's one for each state!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Actually yeah. I remember posting several articles from the Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, etc. about Bush's spending. Nobody here much seemed to care. I don't remember ever seeing you here before about a month ago.

 

So: your sample is about 20 posters on here that you deem hold opposing opinions to yours. Great. Regardless: you said the reaction was apathy? My experience on posting topics in forums is this: if there is no disagreement, there is little discussion. Are you sure you're not confusing lack of objection with agreement with what you posted?

 

We're getting off topic now, but the Tea Party are mostly fringe right Republicans dressed up as social conservatives.

 

Demographic breakdown of the Tea Party - according to Gallup.

 

Interesting. Tea Party membership is fairly mainstream, MDC. Make stuff up, much? The Tea Party has little to do with social conservativism, instead focusing on making Federal Government smaller.

 

If all the arguments you use to defend your position are wrong, wouldn't it stand to reason that your position is wrong, too?

 

Yes - yes it would.

 

That's why most of their favored candidates are mostly evangelicals and culture warriors, not small government Constitutionalists as claimed.

 

Really? Most of the Tea Party candidates have mentioned little to nothing about religion or culture, instead focusing on fiscal policy. You made a claim, now prove it, MDC.

 

Here's a Google link which makes my case perfectly: the very first link is a progressive site trying to make an issue out of Tea Party candidates religious affiliation (an argument offered by the antagonistic left, as though that will be effective ), and the rest of the links displaying what the Tea Party candidates are actually focusing on: Spending, Jobs and Taxes.

 

All I'm talking about here is the debt. And with your reply above, even you seem to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of deficit since Obama took office is not due to any new programs and mostly due to the bad economy and spending enacted under Bush's watch.

 

I acknowledge both. You apologize for Obama because his massive spending plans haven't kicked in yet - as though that somehow forgives his massive spending plans. It's not just that anyway. We need tax and regulation cuts: across the board. We need to get Government to stop spending so damned much.

 

You make a lot of correct assumptions.

 

Yes, yes I do.