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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:03 AM. |