Of course you would, who wouldn't? But it's never going to happen for the reasons I have outline previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, try thinking outside the square because this is where it's all actually taking place.
|
Of course you would, who wouldn't? But it's never going to happen for the reasons I have outline previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, try thinking outside the square because this is where it's all actually taking place.
All I know is that the Repubics cannot survive if their leadership is afraid to defend their values. This kick the can down the road /rear guard action by Speaker Bonehead is a win- win for the President . Heck ,it's worse that that... Speaker Bonehead is to the Repubics what Neville Chamberlain was to the Brits . All it does is allow the President to use them as foils in his Alinsky games. The cost to them ? The public and the rank and file continue to lose confidence that they can effectively lead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Values don't count for anything. They are not part of any management plan. There is no relationship between what the politicians know and what the party actually does.
All they are interested in is the best way implementing a rationalist solutions to the problem of values. And all other problems as well for that matter.
A great pity isn't it?
This rubbish, in fact it is dangerous sedicious rhetoric. Chamberlain appeased a meglomaniac in circumstances where he knew his country wasn't ready for war. Obama is not a meglomaniac. Boehner is doing his job, negotiating in difficult circumstances, knowing fullwell playing Stonewall Jackson isn't going to get the job done. I think he is no longer seduced by the idea that a majority in the house entitles Republicans to be obstructive to the detriment of the countryQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Sedicious eh ? Guess that means I'd get locked up in your part of the world. If negotiate means cave in to the will of the President ,then he isn't the man for the job. The founders gave the House the power of the purse strings... use it!!
Tom I agree that a budget should be formulated and passed by the House, what is in it is, of course, subject to negotiation. I would agree that the Senate shouldn't tinker with it solely for political purposes. Good government dictates that there should be order. No one suggests that there should be a "cavein" but there is nothing wrong with reasoned negotiation and an outcome that can be within the aspirations of both sides. That it doesn't get everything done is a political fact of life. A political party should gets its ducks in a row so it knows what it is supporting and what it is not.
Tom there is free speech and there is sedition,
A budget agreement was passed in 2011.
Hello again, tom:
Nahhh. They're going down BECAUSE they're defending their values.Quote:
All I know is that the Repubics cannot survive if their leadership is afraid to defend their values.
Let's call a spade a spade here.. In terms of GOVERNING the nation, what you call "defending your values", means it's MY way or the HIGHWAY.
A party that can't/won't govern, is a party that won't survive.
excon
And this is 2013, a new house, etc time for a new oneQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The fire works have already started, and the prez has a budget already.
Actually this 2011 budget act covers 10 years
The committee produced no budget so sequestration is the new law if no deal is reached. Last offer from the repubs was a 3 month extension of the debt ceiling, for the senate producing a budget or they don't get paid. LOL.Quote:
If the Super Committee does not produce a report or if the report does not become law – a likely
Outcome considering the political polarization that characterizes this Congress – then spending
Will be lowered by $1.2 trillion, with $109.3 billion in cuts per year (beginning in FY 2013), half of
Which, $54.7 billion, comes from the Defense Department and the other half from the rest of the
Budget. These cuts affect both mandatory and discretionary spending with proportionate cuts to
Both, but Social Security and Medicaid are protected while Medicare providers would see, at
Most, a two percent reduction in payments.
Sequester may not be a bad deal, its those non discretionary spending that may be worrisome.
If you pass a budget for ten years why don't you role up the enabling legislation of the debt ceiling in that legislation. Is it that you have a lot of off budget expenditure, or have revenues declined that much. This is why passing a budget for more than a year doesn't reflect current circumstance
Hello again,
I'm having trouble with this budget stuff.. If there's NO budget, then there's no spending. And, they're spending. Therefore, there IS a budget. I want to know pursuant to WHAT budget. Obviously there's SOME budget going on.
The House passed the Ryan plan as its budget.. But it got no traction in the Senate.. And, the Senate, supposedly, hasn't passed a budget in 3 years..
So, how do they know where to spend what? They're NOT just winging it.
excon
Well, maybe they are, maybe each piece of legislation is its own authorisation for a period, or even perperuity so all they need is the borrowing authority. I don't know about your place but here they say no piece of welfare legislation has ever been repealed, it is just modified.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It certainly seems like you are operating on a wing and a prayer. We watch you carefully because when your market bounces ours takes a nose dive
Actually yes they are... they pass what is called "continuing resolutions" which extends the last budget law. It's bs.from the weasels in Washington.Quote:
They're NOT just winging it.
Definitely seems you need a good clean out Tom perhaps perhaps that tree of liberty needs refreshing
Hello again, tom:
So, they DO have a budget. Well, OF COURSE they do. You just don't LIKE it. My suspicions were correct. It's more right wing propaganda.Quote:
they pass what is called "continuing resolutions" which extends the last budget law.
Excon
BS pass a budget that reflects their spending priorities. What they are doing is quite unconstitutional. Me... I would refuse to do it . But the opposition has no spine.
The whole "pass a budget" argument is a smoke screen, just like the deficit is a smoke screen, to hide two agendas, one is to privatize all social services, and everything else, and shift costs to consumers, and the second is to weaken government, so rich guys can write the rules of how they can control the whole country business wise in as many ways as possible.
Capitalism made to service the free market, with the aid of government. Too bad Romney lost. That really screwed things up. Don't believe me? Paul Ryan's budget is on line, passed twice by the house. It's a road map to domination by the rich, and guarantees full economic control to business that even the TParty doesn't want. READ IT!!
That's why we have no "budget", because we are embroiled in a fight over who gets the money. But I think the gridlock is about to be broken as the HOME team, (Democrats) have made some adjustments for the second half, and the Repubs are running out of gas.
BS ;the very premise of the Ryan budget is to preserve the solvency of the entitlements you are speaking about . Geeze ;his plan brings the budget close to balance in 40 years . Yet your side still thinks it's draconian .
I thought Ryan wanted to get rid of my paltry "entitlements," Social Security and Medicare.
The budget submitted by the Republican House did not have any privatization plans in it . Not only that ;according the CBO ,Social Security spending would rise... from 4.75 percent of GDP in 2011 to 6 percent of GDP in 2030.
Hello Carol:
Right wingers don't now, nor have they EVER supported entitlements. To anybody who can read, the Ryan plan ENDS Medicare as we know it.
To the right wing brain, that's saving it.
Back in Vietnam, right wingers justified destroying villages in order to save them. The right wing brain hasn't morphed from THAT.
excon
Nothing will destroy Medicare faster than Obamacare .
BS back to you, as it provides "premium assistance" at such a low level while shifting costs to the recipient, and gives free reign to business to structure benefits and cost to its own business model, while provide an even greater profit margin through lower taxes and a weak regulatory process.
"Entitlements" go from no profit, to for profit. But of course that's the goal of capitalism isn't it? Make as much money as they can off anything they can? Sure it is just be honest and tell your kids and grand kids how they will support capitalism in their old age so make sure they invest in Wall Street, today so business can profit tomorrow when they are old and ready to retire. Oh and tell them why they have to work until they are 70, or beyond because you needed solvency according to the capitalists ideas of profit over people, even your own kids.
Come on Tom, is that all you got? "MO MONEY FO" ME", "Got mine get what's left". "We're broke and can't afford old people, poor people, and kids, but the rich guy is taxed unfairly."
That didn't work so get a better idea.
Wish I know what you are talking about . I certainly didn't say what you attribute to me.
Obamacare takes $530B from a system that was already in fiscal crisis (nine years away from not being able to pay out current benefits before Obamacare cuts ) .In addition ,Obamacare is designed to destroy Medicare Advantage, a program 12 million seniors use.Obama in fact is the only President since the program was created that slashes money and benefits from Medicare.
You call yourself a capitalist so you may not have said the things I wrote, but you support the ones who did, and as to the rest of your claims,also taken from the rightie capitalists you supported, Mitt and Paul,
This line of campaign rhetoric was debunked along with the 47% that pay no taxes are lazy takers, that Obama has taken the work from the welfare law, and rich guys are job creators, women need to be told what to do with their bodies, and corporations are people too, my friend. And my favorite from you guys, we can balance the budget on the backs of the poor, women, children, elderly, and shrinking middle class and let he rich guys and the church take care of the poor and give them MO MONEY to do it with, any way they see fit.Quote:
Obamacare takes $530B from a system that was already in fiscal crisis (nine years away from not being able to pay out current benefits before Obamacare cuts ) .In addition ,Obamacare is designed to destroy Medicare Advantage, a program 12 million seniors use.Obama in fact is the only President since the program was created that slashes money and benefits from Medicare.
That notion was rejected by a 5 million people margin nationwide. You cannot keep ignoring that FACT!
Of course he is ignoring the facts Tal he is in deniel, Ronmey didn't loose the election, it's just his inaugration will be delayed by a technicality for four years
Romney who?
Exactly he joined the ranks of those other nonentities
Mittens was the Republic sacrificial lamb... he was doomed when he decided to play it clean ands didn't take the gloves off... while Obama called him a criminal.
Still in deniel Tom he was doomed from the start, his own attitudes betrayed him. Let's face it he is an elitest, he is not a man of the people and the people decided he wasn't what was needed. I know democracy is a bummer sometimes
Nobody but you thinks he played it clean. He screwed up when he was afraid to reveal his taxes and got us all wondering WHY?
Hell Tom, he admitted him and his crowd of "job creators" deserved a raise, and the rest of us (yeah you guys too) didn't deserve squat, and had too much already. You guys put him up to it while the real presidential hopefuls sat this one out.
Anybody but Mitt!!
I agree I voted for his because he was the last one standing .Elitist ? I suppose Of course the Dems supported an elitist in 2004 ,and will fully support the same man for Sec State . So ,I don't think that is /was a factor .
I think the electorate decided it was Tom just as they did with Kerry
Two elitist in 2004. Bush was from a family of the upper crust even if he did torture the English language.
Another reply vanished in the wind
Hello again,
Obama 2.0 tried it the Republicans way.. Didn't work. Now, he's going to attack them from the back door. He's using the organization that elected him, to PROMOTE his agenda. Nobody's ever done that before. I think it'll work. He's already shown a toughness that was ABSENT during the first term.
excon
... he will have to forge a new coalition sans the Jeffersonians ,aka blue dogs ,aka Reagan Dems . They will run from him big time with major changes in gun laws. Why do you think Harry Reid is so reluctant to embrace the President's rhetoric on guns ? There are enough Senators from Red states to swing the Senate to Republic in 2014.
Add to that , the Schmuckster is talking about additional taxes in a Senate Budget. They've already squeezed the rich... so new taxes will be coming down hard on the middle income folks... who are already dealing with the end of the temporary payroll deduction break ;and new Obamacare taxes on the way.
Finally ,the President's economic polices are fundamentally flawed and will likely push us back into recession .
So let him have his moment of glory now. He is misreading his mandate . His inaugural address ;and advice he got from the moron on CBS is clear over reach . He will come crawling to the table in short order.
Still trying to bring the guy to his knees huh? Don't feel bad Tom, I said the same things about Reagan and survived his union busting trickle down a$$. And the dope dealing, Bush who came after him.
No doubt you will survive this guy. Damn the world would be different if Carter had thought of trading hostages for machine guns and grenades like Reagan did,and used crack to fiancé it.
Yeah Carter made a mistake. He should've completely ignored them like Obama did this week.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 AM. |