 |
Hello:
The Tea Party says the COUNTRY should live within their budget and pay their bills because that's what AMERICANS do... That would be, unless you are 8th District Rep. Joe Walsh, the freshman congressman whose emerged as one of the hardliners in the debt ceiling debate.
Interesting, as a politician who constantly preaches fiscal responsibility, he is being sued by his ex-wife for unpaid child support.
That'll leave a mark...
excon
No Ex that is a different kind of bill you can bet he still pays his mortgage. Child support and alimony is an emotive issue and not paying it often has more to do with the relationship than it does with any moral position. I would liken his position as like the US promising money to the Haiti earthquake victims and not paying it because Congress wouldn't pass the bill
The world's broken promises to Haiti | Robert Muggah | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Personally, I think letting your children go hungry IS immoral.. But, that's just me - an avowed atheist.
excon
What do you expect from Illinois pols ?
Got to love the timing of the reporting... 8 months after the filing ;right at the time of the debt limit debate;and the very same day the Club for Growth gave him their endorsement . Hmmmm .
Got to wonder if it was the Dems or Bonehead ("get your @ss in line ") that pushed the story .
BTW ; his district was gerrymandered out of existence. If he's to stay in Congress he'll have to challenge a Dem. Incumbent . Not likely that he will return to Congress.
Not that I'm defending non-payment of child support. But this is a law suit ;not a judgement . Divorce ;especially when there is children can be a nasty ,messy ,affair .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
He LOVES the limelight, so I understand some paper was doing a profile on him that he endorsed... Then, of course, the reporter DID his job, and... Well, now you know the rest of the story.
excon
Wow a disgruntled wife. Who would have thought??
We don't know all the circumstances behind what is really going on in the divorce case. But if you look. The exwife has filed in court to have him suspended. Sounds to me like another exwife from hell story.
Judging from his public persona, it may not be the wife who is from hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Well Ex I agree with you but you have some greedy people who won't contribute with some more tax even though they can afford it, and you know what the problem is, they don't think the money would be used to feed children, but to buy more guns to kill someoneelse's children.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You have the great debate underlying this debt problem, the elephant in the room, that government should not be involved in supporting the needy whether they be children, unemployed, retirees, sick or destitute and that elephant is roaring "no more". Until your nation gets a change of heart and a social conscience the debate will continue because this is the "me" generations talking
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Well, we WE'RE that way. Then we decided we could do better, and we did.
excon
Until someone decided the bill is too big and rather than paying the bill they would let the government default on its obligations. It's no good looking to past glories Ex and saying look what we have done, this is today and it doesn't look very glorious at the moment. Seems to me every time someone tries to do something there is a chorus shouting NO! Like the bleeting of sheep before being shorn. That's a metaphor that is probably lost on you but the general idea is it's a painless process soon over but much complainingQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Our right wingers here argue that we have enough money to pay our bills and NOT default. I think they're right. They believe that NOT raising the debt ceiling will bring about their wished for smaller government by FIAT. I think they're right.
The PROBLEM lies in where you think the government needs to shrink. I'd shrink it differently than my winger friends. If it were up to me, after August 2, when the wrecking ball DESTROYS a few agency's, I'd START with the DEA, and continue on with the NSA, not forgetting the TSA. Then I'd DESTROY the Bureau of Prisons. Oh, yeah, and I'd end a couple wars too.
THEN I believe we'd have enough money to take care of our needy with a few bucks left over. Plus, we'll still have enough prison space to keep the REAL bad guys for a REAL long time.
But, that's just how I'D do it.
excon
Ah Ex there is nothing like brinkmanship to focus the mind, but your anti-social bent is showing. Mind you, I understanding you have a huge prison population over there, you must be doing something wrong, eh? Too much smoking dope? Or too many dopes smokin?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I applaud your aspirations because small government is really what it is about, wish we could get some here..
I have seen your equations though, is your solution to print more money? Because there is a great gap between what your government takes in and what it puts out. Even if you stopped all the discretinary spending there is still a huge gap. Like even if you cut all spending in half you are still not balanced and the only way that can change is to get your economy moving so revenues increase and outgoings drop. I know what it must be it's those damn$d models again, those economic scientists have got it wrong again, predicting doom and gloom on bad data
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
From MY point of view, taking CARE of people, instead of putting 'em in jail, or spying on 'em, or making war on 'em, isn't ant-social at all. It's quite the opposite.
But, that's just me.
excon
Not in disagreement EX but your sentiments not shared by all it appears. No, I was referring to your willingness to do away with certain arms of law enforcement, of which, I expect, you have too many. Reducing that aspect of government is sometimes usefulQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Tea Partier fails to pay child support (allegedly). What else would you from a guy affiliated with "the dark side" as Pelosi calls it?
Some "he said, she said" divorce issue is hardly worth getting worked up over until all the facts are in. The fact that Democrats are actively attacking their colleagues as evil, dangerous and unpatriotic from the floor is worth noting.
Months of hostage taking and posturing, but NO jobs.
Hostage taking and posturing? You're getting awfully good at "DemocratSpeak." It means absolutely nothing but it sounds good.
DEAD ON. They R was elected because they ran on JOBS JOBS JOBS. Um how's that working out??Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It means creating a phony crisis, and distracting from the real issues, like growing the economy. Maybe the TEA party should expand their vocabulary, because talk of job creation shouldn't be just DemocratSpeak.
This coming from the side that believes you should never let a good crisis go to waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Like Dems, "shared sacrifice," balanced approach" and "hope and change." This congress was elected to "change" the way business is done in Washington, so get over it.Quote:
Maybe the TEA party should expand their vocabulary,
There is nothing to get over, but plenty to talk about, don't be so sensitive.
Actually no Pelosi and the Dems ran on jobs,jobs ,jobs.Did they deliver in the years between 2006 ,when they took over the House ,until they were consigned to minority status ? NoQuote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
TP ran on reducing spending and the size of government .
You remember Pelosi don't you ? She's the one that said unemployment was stimulus. She told artists that they shouldn't try to get jobs because the stupid
American workers would pay for their health care and that their time could then be freed up to
Focus on their talents, passions and aspirations, because they wouldn’t be “job locked.”
She's the one that said Obamacare would create 400,000 new jobs.
That's not being sensitive, I just have a good memory.
What's good for the goose...Quote:
In Washington's current state of dysfunction, everyone has a favorite hyper-partisan moment. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor's moment came at a White House meeting with congressional leaders on day three of the new Administration. He handed President Barack Obama a list of ideas to fix the economy. Pointing to a small business tax-cut item, Obama said: "We disagree on tax policy." When Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
Hello again:
“I won't place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Joe Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video.
But, he won't buy 'em lunch, either... What a scumbag...
In the divorce between Joe Walsh and his ex, it's a LOT more than a "he said - she said" situation, as some of his apologists suggest. In fact, he ADMITS that he stiffed his kids. Here's what his LAWYER says: “I dispute that he owes the child support that she's claiming or anywhere near that amount,” Polachek said. “Joe Walsh hasn't been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently — he's had no more problems with child support than any other average guy.”
Now, I UNDERSTAND the problems child support causes to your average guy.. But, your average guy doesn't hold himself up to be a bastion of financial responsibility, like this hypocrite does. THAT'S why he deserves to be brought down. I HATE hypocrites.
There's more. Read it here.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So far I see nothing that indicates anything unusual as far as a contested custody settlement goes. 9 years of wrangling in the courts can't be cheap either. Maybe that money would have been better spent on the children. They way the article reads it really is a he said she said scenario. Having personal experience with today's child support system I can see how all of this is coming about. Claim after claim by a vendictive ex (no not you) and the system being out of whack like it is this is pretty typical of today's times.
Child support of today has come to a point to criminalize the ordinary citizen going through a normal life. Its very sad for all parties especially the children.
I have no use for deadbeat dads either, but let's take on all the elected hypocrites. You can start with Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Rangel...
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I don't disagree. I'm divorced. But, the difference is, I'M not DISSING the president on TV every day because of HIS financial irresponsibility... Joe, the hypocrite, Walsh IS.
Now, if it were me, and I was just your ordinary guy with child support problems, and I just WON a congressional seat, knowing how things are, before I went on TV calling Obama out for HIS sins, I would have made absolutely sure that I was squeaky clean. Yes, I would have paid ALL of my ex's claims - EVEN if they were outrageous.
But, evidently, he doesn't know how things are. How, he could believe that this WOULDN'T be exposed, and make him LOOK like a hypocrite, is perplexing.. But, I can't figure out how right wingers think.
excon
But didn't he, in his narcissistic arrogance, INVITE the scrutiny?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Those bastards...
excon
From what was stated it looks like they have been trying to reach a settlement of some kind. Including emails that were put into the record as evidence. Im thinking the exwife is getting greedy since his election into office.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Unless we could see all the documentation involved we can't say for sure what is really going on. We can only make generalities out of the mess that is being reported. Im not saying he shouldn't pay what is owed. But it sounds a bit fishy from what I did read in that article.
Wrong sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Some Say G.O.P. Pledge to Voters Would Increase Deficit - NYTimes.com
See:Quote:
Republicans Offer Their Agenda for Midterm Elections
In the legislative blueprint that Republicans hope will serve as a roadmap to winning control of the House, they declared their two highest priorities to be creating jobs and stopping “out-of-control spending” by the federal government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...e_09222010.pdf
Actually I'm right . I did not say what the Bonehead Republican beltway insiders ran on .I was specific in citing wihat the TP ran on.
Contract FROM America
Quote:
Protect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes
——————–
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And all those darn wingnuts gave us was a "Satan sandwich" with "Satan fries".
Well you did since your reply here quotes that spit was talking about Republicans not Tea Party types. Plus I linked to the actual GOP Pledge PDF.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Actually that's pretty funny LOL! Pssst... there really is no satan. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 PM. |