Hello:

Yup, the new Republican leadership thinks jobs are their priority. They LISTENED to the public. They're going to make jobs number one...

But FIRST, they needed to repeal health care... Ok, they did that. Now, you'd think they'd work on jobs, wouldn't you? But, no. They had something else they had to do. So, for their SECOND official act, they passed a bill to limit abortion.

Surly, the THIRD attempt will be about jobs, no? Let's see. Somehow I doubt it.

excon

Do you think it's possible they don't know how to do it? In politics it is easier to dismantle than to build. Tell you what Ex, we have a large number of reconstruction jobs over here, and you know what? It won't cost your government anything

What bill would that be?

What bill would that be?Hello Steve:

Uhhhh, THIS (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/20/h-r-3-the-no-taxpayer-funding-for-abortion-act/) one. I could have linked you to a left wing site, but I brought you Michelle Malkin instead.

excon

So when Obama took office the right gave him about a month before they called him a failure for not creating jobs. On February 1st are we allowed to call the right a failure for not creating millions of jobs?

Oh that one, To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections...

It was introduced, I didn't see where it was passed. Just holding Obama to his word that Obamacare wouldn't make taxpayers pay for abortions. That was in the works for some time and not very labor intensive I'm sure. It'll take a lot more effort to undo the damage Obama has done, he didn't get us in this mess overnight and they can't get us out overnight... unless we drill, drill, drill.

Just holding Obama to his word that Obamacare wouldn't make taxpayers pay for abortions.

The President suckered the Stupak group to sign onto Obamacare .He used an executive order to prevent the use of taxpayer funding for abortions.

This bill would just assure that what the President decree becomes part of the law ;not subject to his whims .

Since the President signed the executive order he should have no issue signing the law when passed .

Hello again, Steve and Tom:

I see that you AGREE about the importance of passing abortion legislation BEFORE you tackle jobs. I just wonder if the voters will.

What's next? Repeal of DADT??

excon

I do believe they can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children.

On the other hand.. I have doubts that the government can do anything to create jobs beyond repealing some of the sillier regulations and edicts that created road blocks to the creation of jobs in the 1st place .

If the President says tonight he's lifting the ban on drilling, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer. But he won't do that .

I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children. Hello again, tom:

Like the Dems before you, they too had imperatives BEFORE they tackled the hard stuff. You're starting just like them... I suspect it'll continue, and for the same reasons. Nobody wants to make the HARD choices...

They're holding Paul Ryan up as a target tonight. Everybody else refused to do it. You can't blame 'em. If he survives, the onslaught... But, he won't, and it'll be Republicans who do him in. Why? Because talk is cheap and NOBODY wants to make the hard choices.

excon

I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children.
And no taxpayer money will be used to assist in their upbringing?

There is plenty of taxpayer money supporting the upraising of children as you know.

there is plenty of taxpayer money supporting the upraising of children as you know.
But social services assistance is being cut left and right. Apparently, too much money is being used.

Show me the Federal cuts .Even if there were ,is it your opinion that it is OK to use taxpayer money to kill children ?

I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children. Hello again, tom:

For being free market right wingers, you certainly don't understand the markets too much... Restricting taxpayer funded abortion, only restricts POOR people from getting abortions. But, POOR women want to have abortions just like rich women do, and try as you might to LIMIT their choices, they'll find somebody to do it anyway.. And, he just might be a butcher like the one on the other thread.

When abortions are universally available, there won't be any butchers... That's just so.

That's not to say I think abortion is good. I don't. But there are a LOT of things that are available in the free marketplace that I don't think are good. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw them. That's how a FREE society works..

excon

When abortions are universally available, there won't be any butchers... That's just so.

That's not to say I think abortion is good. I don't. But there are a LOT of things that are available in the free marketplace that I don't think are good. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw them. That's how a FREE society works..

excon
Well said sir.

Ex, as I said on the other OP ,I don't make a distinction between the Philly doc and the doc at any clinic in this country killing kids the lawful way. Both are murder in my book.

Ex, as I said on the other OP ,I don't make a distinction between the Philly doc and the doc at any clinic in this country killing kids the lawful way. Both are murder in my book.

There is a lawfull way to kill kids in your country? I agree with you Tom abortion is murder, legalised murder, a complete disrespect of human rights

Hello again:

This discussion only reaffirms the notion that the Republicans have a great many imperatives to deal with before they tackle jobs.

Who wants to bet me that the THIRD bill entertained by the Republicans won't be about jobs either? They'll find something about guns, gays or god to occupy their time.

excon

[QUOTE]For being free market right wingers, you certainly don't understand the markets too much... Restricting taxpayer funded abortion, only restricts POOR people from getting abortions. But, POOR women want to have abortions just like rich women do, and try as you might to LIMIT their choices, they'll find somebody to do it anyway.. And, he just might be a butcher like the one on the other thread.

Personally I think it's deplorable that there is a 'market' for abortions, but that's why I prefer to try and change hearts and minds more than the law. The mindset that not only rationalizes the killing of the most innocent among us for the sake of convenience, but fights tooth and nail to make it more available is a complete mystery to me. How can someone fight for an industry that has killed 52 million children? That my friend is sickening.

Hello again, fellows:

Left out of ALL of your discussions, is ANY mention of the mother.. But for the mother, your arguments make sense.. Because it was HER rights that were recognized by the Supreme Court, after all. So, you don't mention her by design. Her rights are an "inconvenient truth" you'd rather ignore.

excon

Hello again, fellows:

Left out of ALL of your discussions, is ANY mention of the mother.. But for the mother, your arguments make sense.. Because it was HER rights that were recognized by the Supreme Court. So, you don't mention her by design. Her rights are an "inconvenient truth" you'd rather ignore.

Personally, I believe the 'mother' has been deceived by the pro-abortionists. You keep forgetting how personal this is with me, ex. My only grandchild isn't because of abortion, and the mother regrets it daily. I have no sympathy for any 'mother' that can abort her child without regret.

You keep forgetting how personal this is with me, ex.Hello again, Steve:

I forget NOTHING. Abortion touches all of us.
I have no sympathy for any 'mother' that can abort her child without regret.
Me too. But, I doubt there's any to be found. I can't imagine that you think there is.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I forget NOTHING. Abortion touches all of us.
Me too. But, I doubt there's any to be found. I can't imagine that you think there is.

excon

So we're pushing an industry that leads to regret in every instance. Sounds like an industry with no value.

So we're pushing an industry that leads to regret in every instance. Sounds like an industry with no value.
Pushing it? I don't think that's what's happening. That "industry" has always been there, but not as visible. And stats say that most young single women tend to keep their babies.

Teen pregnancies are supposed to be down now, but if you read some of the boards on this site, you wouldn't believe that.

The real "industry" should be teaching kids that sex before marriage, or at least a stable relationship, is not a good idea biologically, morally, socially, psychologically, financially, etc. -- not a good idea at all.

So we're pushing an industry that leads to regret in every instance. Sounds like an industry with no value.Hello again, Steve:

Indeed, Steve. There are NO winners in abortion - only losers..

But, we're not "pushing an industry" any more than throwing out trash "pushes" the garbage industry, or outlawing pot "pushes" the prison industry... The thought that we PUSH abortion, rather than allow it, or that women get them with NO regrets is macabre. You still seem to harbor those notions... It's bizarre stuff.

I don't know where you where, but if you recall, before Roe, there were regrets... It wasn't all leave it to beaver, like you'd have us believe... In fact, that's why the law was changed - BECAUSE there were regrets.. Since there are only losers in abortion, we decided the law based on who loses the least. I don't know if we came down on the right side.

What I DO know, is that if I ignored HALF the issue, like you do, I could be as CERTAIN, and self righteous as you are.. But, I'm not.

excon

Indeed, Steve. There are NO winners in abortion - only losers..

So why would anyone back a losing proposition when there can be winners?


The thought that we PUSH abortion, rather than allow it, or that women get them with NO regrets is macabre. You still seem to harbor those notions... It's bizarre stuff.

I find it macabre that abortionists would "bend the rules" to provide abortions to minors without parental consent (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6197723-504083.html). I find it macabre that Planned Parenthood would sell gift certificates at Christmas good for any of their services including abortions (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=6384543&page=1).


Since there are only losers in abortion, we decided the law based on who loses the least. I don't know if we came down on the right side.

I thought it was about "choice" and a "right to privacy," not who loses the least. Here's a thought, if we're going to err, why not err on the side of life?


What I DO know, is that if I ignored HALF the issue, like you do, I could be as CERTAIN, and self righteous as you are.. But, I'm not.

You know better than to pretend I am unsympathetic or self-righteous, but I am CERTAIN it is a choice between life and death. Aren't you?

So why would anyone back a losing proposition when there can be winners? Hello again, Steve:

Ignoring the losers again, won't help your argument with me. I don't know WHY you insist on doing that... Ok, yes I do. If you had empathy for the mother, your stance would go into the trash where it belongs... So, it's easier if you IGNORE her entirely...

Here's another thing that you ignore.. I ain't going to let you get away with it.

excon

That's priceless, Orwellian, but priceless.

My grandchild, dead, and he/she isn't a loser?

My daughter, my best friend's wife - and who knows how many other women in my life suffer in silence - after choosing abortion and my speaking out on their behalf means I have no empathy for the mother? Only in your world, ex. You can repeat that lie all you want and it will still just be a lie.

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, let's end the abortion thing. We ain't going to agree and we don't seem to be able to read each others posts properly...

Let's go back to the incompetent right wing majority in the House.

excon

Or the guy looking for his "Sputnik moment?"

Surly, the THIRD attempt will be about jobs, no? Let's see. Hello again:

Nahhh. It's not. Number FOUR (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-27/u-s-house-votes-to-end-campaign-finance-system-senate-unlikely-to-agree.html) is another right wing imperative about campaign finance reform.

Jobs'll just have to wait...

excon

Actually, number ONE was "repeal and replace (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/house-gop-begins-long-slog-dismantle-obamacare#ixzz1CFjBTvW8)," not repeal.


By a vote of 253 to 175, the GOP directed key House committees to report on ways to lower health care premiums, allow patients to keep their current health plans, increase access to coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and decrease the price of medical liability lawsuits.

You're just trying to control the message, which you credited as the reason they won so handily.

Meanwhile, Democrats' number one priority was filibuster reform, which they failed to accomplish (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/01/senate-quiet-death-filibuster-reform) during their '22-day "first day."'

Actually, number ONE was "repeal and replace (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/house-gop-begins-long-slog-dismantle-obamacare#ixzz1CFjBTvW8)," not repeal. Hello again, Steve:

Well, that's what your right wing rag says... I say it was jobs. Boehner does too... Nonetheless, even if I accept what it said, I'm still waiting for the "replace" part. But, that ain't happening, is it??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, that's what your right wing rag says... I say it was jobs. Boehner does too... Nonetheless, even if I accept what it said, I'm still waiting for the "replace" part. But, that ain't happening, is it???

excon

It takes time to undo the damage Obamacare inflicted. We're still learning what was in the monstrosity, you think they can fix it overnight?

you think they can fix it overnight?Hello again, Steve:

I misunderstood... I thought repealing it, got RID of it altogether. That way, they don't have to FIX anything. They just have to "replace" it with THEIR ideas from scratch. They HAVE had a year or so to think about it, no?

I'm waiting...

excon

I say they begin with the 1st part of repeal and replace.

If anyone thinks the Republicans have not offered alternatives ,they haven't been listening . Congressman Ryan made a number of proposals that more or less sums up the Republican position on health care reform and other issues .
I'll post it again because evidently it hasn't been read .
A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/)

Congressman Ryan made a number of proposals that more or less sums up the Republican position on health care reform and other issuesHello again, tom:

Proposals?? PROPOSALS?? Talk is cheap. Where's the BILL?

excon

Proposals??? PROPOSALS???? Talk is cheap. Where's the BILL?Hello again, tom:

Let's cut to the chase.. There isn't going to BE a bill, is there? Oh, the Republicans will come up SOME bill or other slight of hand. But, at the very least, Ryans proposal is to replace Medicare with a voucher system. Whether that's a GOOD idea or not, ISN'T the issue. The issue is WHO will put their political career on the line to actually attempt to write a bill like that? Because it will NEVER be approved by the electorate, and the congressman who tries it, will be toast.

So, the Republicans will DO exactly what the Democrats did - fiddle, while Rome burns.

Buy gold.

excon

The Republicans have bills on the table and have had them on the table since 2009 .
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf

And of course I would not have posted Ryan's plan if it wasn't being introduced as legislation

Rep. Paul Ryan to introduce alternative to health care and spending | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment (http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/27/rep-paul-ryan-to-introduce-alternative-to-health-care-and-spending/)

Hello again, tom:

Ok, let's see how it works out. Am I pessimistic that the Republicans can get spending under control?? Yup.

excon

Am I pessimistic that the Republicans can get spending under control?? Yup.


Me too . But I was more pessimistic before the people voted in Tea Party candidates.
Rand Paul unveils plan for $500B in budget cuts - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9L094PO1.htm)
Rand Paul introduced budget legislation that would slash $500 billion initially .
BothRand Paul and Ron Paul have resolutions for that long overdue audit of the Fed.

On Thursday, the House Republican Study Committee introduced a bill that the committee said would reduce spending by $2.5 trillion over a decade.
All this has been characterized as low hanging fruit (unless you are a Dem) .

Entitlements across the board have to be reformed .We can either start now or wait until we are forced to take measures like in Europe.

We can either start now or wait until we are forced to take measures like in Europe.Hello again, tom:

There's a kernel of truth in what you say... What we NEED to do is balance our budget. That would mean we need live within our means ACROSS the board.. It won't happen, though, if we attempt to balance our accounts on the backs of the poor and infirm - Republicans favorite villains. And, it certainly won't happen while we're fighting TWO - count 'em - TWO expensive wars of choice - no, let's make it THREE wars of choice if the drug war is included...

We can do this, but the cuts YOU'D make, and the cuts I'D make aren't remotely close. I'd even ask the rich to pitch in.

excon

Hello again:

Interestingly, their FOURTH priority isn't about jobs either... John Boehner thinks it's about school vouchers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/26/boehner-backs-revived-school-voucher-plan/). Whoda thunk that?

Still waiting...

excon

Hello again,

Boy, you Republicans are NOT creating jobs so fast, it's hard to keep up. I was wrong above.. The Republicans FOURTH priority is, the "Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011" (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.4:). The one above is the FIFTH.

Wow! THAT'S an imperative before tackling jobs, huh? I wonder what the SIXTH will be...

excon

Maybe they think that will create jobs... sorta like when the left says destroying energy industry jobs and banning their work will create jobs making (or tilting at)windmills .

By the way ,ending the silly mandates requiring small businesses to file forms to the IRS every time they make a $600 petty cash purchase is a top priority in my book . It should be in yours too if you are the businessman you say you are .

Actually, that mandate on paperwork is a part of the Obacamare overhaul so you're still on no. 1 there.

The first act was "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act " so technically, jobs were the first thing the House addressed. But let's end the suspense and just list them...

2) H.R.3 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

3) H.R.4 Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011

4) H.R.5 Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011

5) H.R.10 Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011

Hello again:

So NAMING a bill "job killing" means it's a job killer?? Really?? I suppose the Patriot Act, meant that when your government forces you to bend over, you're a patriot.

NAMING stuff?? NAMING STUFF?? Dude!

excon

And I suppose forcing small businesses to file more paperwork with the IRS means that both the business and the IRS will have to hire more accountants and auditors . That makes Obamacare a job stimulus bill !!!!!!!

And PayGo means pay as you go, right?

Hello again:

The Democrats suck... Pay go means whatever the Democrats want it to... So, the Republicans should do the SAME??

That's a big problem.

excon

Nope, I want something besides renaming stuff. I don't care how many times Obama says he wants to "invest" he just means "spend."

Nope, I want something besides renaming stuff. I don't care how many times Obama says he wants to "invest" he just means "spend."Hello again, Steve:

The government can only do three things... It can pass laws.. It can give tax breaks (subsidy's). It can write checks...

A few years ago, here in Washington, the government wrote some checks for some dumb reactor program called WPPS, or something like that... It failed. Consequently, the checks the government wrote for that project, were nothing more than idle, wasteful spending...

A few years earlier in the other Washington, the government wrote some checks for our interstate highway system. It DIDN'T fail. Consequently, the checks the government wrote for that project, were an investment that has paid dividend, after dividend, after dividend.

It's EASY to say the government shouldn't write any more checks. It's just not realistic.

excon

It's EASY to say the government shouldn't write any more checks. It's just not realistic.

No one said the government shouldn't write any more checks, just stop expanding it infinitely while blowing smoke up my a$$.

No one said the government shouldn't write any more checks, just stop expanding it infinitely while blowing smoke up my a$$.Hello again, Steve:

Look. I'm a fiscal conservative... Probably MORE than you are. I think the government should live within its budget. So, I'm willing to CUT. I'm willing to HAVE that conversation here with you. In fact, I think I STARTED it somewhere here recently, when I mentioned that we could put something like $19 BILLION in our pockets if we ended the war on pot. Not the war on DRUGS - the war on POT.

I didn't see anybody lining up.

So, if you want to have a conversation about actually putting our finances in order, I'll have that conversation... But, you want to blow smoke...

Let me ask you this. Do you think we need troops in Germany? How about Japan? Do you think we need a missile defense against the Russians? Do you think we need military programs that congress wants, but the military doesn't??

If you, like many conservatives, don't want to put any of that on the table, then our conversation about living within our means is OVER before it really gets started.

excon

If you, like many conservatives, don't want to put any of that on the table, then our conversation about living within our means is OVER before it really gets started

Dude, I've said many times I have no objection to ending the war on pot. Everything else can be on the table, including entitlements, earmarks and all manner of pork. How's that?

I've said many times I have no objection to ending the war on pot. How's that?Hello again, Steve:

Well, it's better than nothing... But, if a mugger were whacking you on the head with a bat, I'll bet you'd say MORE than, I have no objection if you stop.

excon

You sure have a funny of acknowledging when we agree, lol. I've also told you before, that's your cause... I have other causes.