Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.
The Tea Party people who are currently in Congress have already worked to change the default mode of Congress from "How much should we expand the government by?" to "Should we really be spending all this money?".
They have? What evidence do you have for this?
The debt ceiling debate for one.
Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Once they get even more support on the federal level, the next step will be to move to "Where should we cut actual spending?" and then eventually to "How do we get this budget balanced?". It has taken decades to get us to these levels of excess spending; you can't expect it to be fixed in just a couple of years. And there is absolutely no chance that we will move down that path with Obama in office. We do have that opportunity with Romney.
I truly have no idea at all why you would believe that last sentence. It is highly irrational.
Why? We already know Reid promised to block and Obama promised to veto even just $60 billion in less spending increases, so clearly they won't be enacting any budget cutting measures. If Congress passes a spending plan that reduces spending, there is no indication that Romney would veto such legislation. Obama clearly would because he believes that the deficit can only be fixed by higher taxes on "the rich".