Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Names of the 92 House Republicans That Votes Against Cutting Government Spen

I'm sad to say mine did, and I've already sent him an eat $hit and die email. We were supposed to have weeded out all these RINO's last November. If yours is on the list, let em know their days are numbered. Politically of course.

http://netrightdaily.com/2011/02/th...tting-government-spending/#ixzz1EPw4X6Fs

Could this be any more vague? They met to vote on Sunday???

Surprised? Business as usual one is as bad as the other.

Congressmen that DIDN'T vote against the cuts...

Democrats - 0
Republicans - 149

Not all Republicans are good, but ALL Democrats ARE bad. They are not the same.

You just showed the only difference is whether there's an R or D before their name.

Sorry, I thought that's what you were saying, was that there is no difference between the two.

It is going to take an Egypt move to get there attention and I do not think that that will even work. Our so called politicians are nothing less than dictators them selfs. (in my opinion) at least that is the way they have acted in the past several years and whether they have a D or an R after there name it dosen't matter they are corupt going in or they get corupt very soon after.

We as a peaple need to find some way to turn it around.

The big question is HOW!

My understanding is that was a preliminary round of voting which was prior to the final vote of which only 3 GOP voted against.

It's a common occurrence when a Bill is working it's way to a final vote. Cantor voted against it early on, as well. I don't know what Jordan tried to add to the final bill but it obviously caused some pause.

We need to know more....Two of ours (from OK) are on this list and are very conservative. Anyone have a number on Jordans bill that is track able?

I see our local rep Mike Simpson on that list. He's going down next election.

So they vote for final passage cutting over $60 billion in government spending and you still call them a RINO? Why...because they disagree with you? Is that it??

My conservative representative is on there as well. There is more to the story than this blurb would indicate. As I understand it the campaign pledge was a 100 billion dollar cut from the budget. It seems most of those who voted against it have no problem with that pledge. The sticking point is that we are now half through this fiscal year (FY 2011) on continuing resolutions which simply means so far this year we are using last years budget. Some of the young bucks calling for 100 billion dollars be taken from the FY 2011 budget making it an effective $200 billion dollar cut. The other wing is calling for a 50 billion cut this year and a 100 billion cut next year (FY 2012) from the full fical year.

I tend to agree with the second wing party. To make an effective 200 billion cut is likely to have effects on the economy that that are detrimental first of all. Second I think it would effectively hand the 2012 elections to the Democrats. I will support my congressman this year but expect the full cuts or close to it next year.

Blogs are like emails. They are enough to get you excited but seldom tell the whole story. It helps to dig a bit deeper.

Well said!

NOT all constituents are in favor of budget cuts. A politician has to dance to the tune of more than one group.

Based on my lookups, some Republicans want to take a second look at the �Across-the-board cuts� and prefer planned cuts for each agency separately.

Cantor was trying to hold the democrats for the overall bill and at 2:15 in the morning called for the final vote to kill the amendment.

Ryan disagreed and voted for the amendment and has said that the $100 billion goal is still going to happen.

In the $60 billion of cuts that did pass; Foreign aid and State Department operations got hit for $10 billion and the EPA loses $2.7 billion.

As always, it is a messy process and this bill dies in the Senate anyway.

I think it was Reagan that said; Give me 90% of what I want now and I will come back later for the other 20%�

That's what I want - Washington DC to have a recession and have DC home values collapse like they have everywhere else!

As it is, DC has been a boom town all this while.

Why don't you worry about the final bill and the votes that they make for or against it? Furthermore, while the progressive fascists control the Senate and the Presidency any spending cuts are going to have a hard time becoming reality. So don't be so critical of the Republicans.

the devil is in the details, and the article does not give the details of the amendment.

But like the black plague the difficulty is in confining the effects to select targets.

I think it was Reagan that said; Give me 90% of what I want now and I will come back later for the other 20%�


RedState Morning Briefing
For February 22, 2011

Eric Cantor�s Failure of Leadership
Posted by Erick Erickson Tuesday, February 22nd

�On Friday, 92 Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, joined all of the Democrats to defeat an amendment offered up by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn to ensure the GOP lived up to its �$100 billion in cuts� pledge.

This was a failure of leadership, particularly by Eric Cantor

Blackburn�s amendment, by its own description, would have �reduced spending by 5.5% in 8 non-security spending subsections of the bill and reduce Legislative Branch appropriations by 11%.�
In other words, just as Republicans pledged to bring spending down to 2008 levels, Congresswoman Blackburn�s amendment would have ensured it happened across the board, save for security matters.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy joined Democrats to oppose this. Other Republicans took to the floor to call Rep. Blackburn and her conservative colleagues �lazy� for wanting across the board cuts

On November 3, 2010, the same Eric Cantor spoke with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric and said:

�We have put on the table an attempt to put discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, and that means an across-the-board reduction in spending.�

In 2007, Marsha Blackburn offered up a similar piece of legislation which would have, by its description, �[made] 1 percent across-the-board rescissions in non-defense, non-homeland-security discretionary spending for fiscal year 2007.�

Eric Cantor co-sponsored it.

In fact, both in 2005 and 2007, Eric Cantor co-sponsored 3 similar Blackburn bills each session of Congress to make across board cuts of 1%, 2%, and 5%.�