Reagan said government is the problem.  For me that is the fundamental element of conservatism.  W, his daddy and most Republicans do not accept this premiss and therefore in my estimation aren't conservatives.

When you hear Republicans like Ryan, etal say that growth is the solution to the debt problem what they are telling you is they are big government Republicans just like the Bushes. 

The debt is a symptom of out of control government not the problem.  

Why should conservatives do anything with the Bush years?  They have little more to do with with conservatives than the Obama or Clinton years?

Why  would this GOP politician who is facing re-election do this unprincipled thing?  Could it be he thinks it improves his chances of being re-elected?  Which is more important to him than anything  else.

The term has no meaning and the conservative press is too lazy to press people who use it to specify precisely what they mean by it.  I understand why the MSM help the liberal propaganda machine, but you would think the pathetic parasites on the right would at least ask some probing questions.

I think this question has little to do with marriage.  Fifty years ago those who practiced sodomy demanded it no longer be considered illegal.  Thirty years ago they were demanding acceptance.  Today they demand the government endorse their deviancy and a decade from now they will be demanding any churches who do not do the same be sanctioned.

The pro-deviant side of the struggle has co-opted the language and therefore will prevail.  Sodomy is sodomy, but since  the other side dare not say so there is little chance they will prevail.

There has been a dozen or so main feed posts on this and I do not recall the word "sodomy" used even once.  One might want to ask the question why?

The GOP is a center left party and has been one since Reagan.  There are a few limited government conservatives, but these are exceptions.  I have difficulty understanding why anyone is surprised by Kasich.

Reince was chairman and while he may not have been totally responsible for the 2012 fiasco he certainly deserves a large portion of the blame.   Having the MSM moderate the debates seems to me one of the dumbest things any supposed conservative party could possibly do.  

Reinse ran for a new term as chairman after  the election and won.  Given that single fact how can anyone believe the GOP will not continue to be the dumb party.  If it were not for the comedic relief the GOP provides it would no longer serve any purpose.  

I would say it started in the middle of the big brother Bush era.  

"new revenue" = higher taxes.  What he is saying is I need to disguise tax increases as tax reform.  The only republicans will support measures to reduce the size of government if they are forced to by voters.  The primary difference between them and Obama is the kind of lies they tell.

I have no idea if you are worth what you get paid.  But if your salary was cut 10% you could always quit and take your talents to the private sector.  If you did this I would wager there would be a long line of applicants more than willing to take your place.  I don't know of any federal jobs that don't get filled because the compensation being offered is insufficient.    

It use to be that government workers pretended to work and the government pretended to pay them.   Only one size of this equation has changed. 

Since Federal government workers now earn more on average than their civilian counterparts a  sensible thing to do would be to cut salaries by 10% and not eliminate any positions at present.  

Since this is not being suggested by either party one might want to ask why?  A possible answer is that this would alienated all federal workers putting at risk the political careers of Congressman of both parties. 

Makes me think that all this nonsense has nothing to do with reducing spending or the size of government, but simply one more political farce orchestrated by the corruptocrats in DC.

Since the chicken hawks in DC don't have the stomach to fight a real war and this has become fairly evident to the rest of the world; I seriously doubt our military has much of a deterrent effect anymore no matter what size it is.

It seems to me lefties like to win.  The rich liberals who practices the politics of envy do so because it wins them elections and as long as they can stay in power they get even richer.  Republicans also manage to reap their rewards from the same political game by claiming to be for smaller government while promoting the exact opposite.  This farce keeps them in power.

I find it difficult to believe anyone still thinks what a politician says reveals anything other than what he thinks will help him stay in power.

I guess if a male CEO grabs the rear of an attractive female employee he not only is acting boorishly he is also doing a "profound disservice" to all other male employees.   What she does or does not do reflects on her not other woman.  

One would think defense spending would be spending used to defend the country.  That has not been the case for many decades.  

The country has not lacked sufficient military forces for decades.  If anything we have excess capacity.  What is lacking is the will of chicken hawk politicians of both parties to wisely use the force we have.  When military force is deployed the rules of engagement they are given make them little more than targets and the generals who allow this to happen are little more than butt kissing political yes men.

Defense spending is the GOP's cookie jar and social welfare spending serves the same purpose for the Dems.  

9/11 happened because skirt chasing Clinton and bozo Bush failed to do their jobs, not because we did not have enough military spending.

I think BBA proposals are more or less BS proposed by politicians who love big government, but want to sound as if they do not.  The concept of talking about spending as a percent of GDP is at best misleading.  If the idea of it is examined this becomes clear.  If GDP tripled form 16T. - 48T. not one more dollar of defense spending would be required, less not more social service spending would be needed, and since this could only occur with less not more regulations the same holds true for the regulators.  Yet politicians insist government spending should increase from 3.4 to  over 10 T.  Looked at logically spending in real terms should decrease and in percentage terms shrink for 24% of GDP to less than 10%.

Clearly the problem here is politicians, including Republicans like Ryan, Rubio,  etal, who think more government is a good thing  and are searching for ways to justify it.

Local, sate and federal spending make up 40+% of spending.  Government regulation tightly controls another 30+%.  With only 25% of capital now available to a semi-free market the idea that tinkering with tax codes will produce real growth is a pipe dream.  

Government uses capital far less efficiently than the free market.  The only way to re-ignite growth and the middle class is to shrink the size and influence of government,  neither party is willing to do this.

When GWB was elected the US was ranked as the third freest economy in the world it is ranked 13 today.  

Bush/Obama, Republican/Democrat elites and their parasitic cheerleaders in the press  have managed to kill the golden goose.   

When will they stop blathering about tax rates?

Does anyone doubt if the government were 30% or 50% smaller that the economy would be far more robust?  Every time the lie is repeated it becomes more believable.  You and Obama make a great team.