Check out some similar questions!

excon · Jul 29, 2011, 06:47 PM

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

paraclete · Jul 29, 2011, 07:25 PM

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

excon · Jul 29, 2011, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

not paying it often has more to do with the relationship than it does with any moral position.

Hello clete:

Personally, I think letting your children go hungry IS immoral.. But, that's just me - an avowed atheist.

excon

tomder55 · Jul 30, 2011, 03:17 AM

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 .

excon · Jul 30, 2011, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Gotta wonder if it was the Dems or Bonehead ("get your @ss in line ") that pushed the story .

Hello again, tom:

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

cdad · Jul 30, 2011, 03:55 PM

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.

Wondergirl · Jul 30, 2011, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Sounds to me like another exwife from hell story.

Judging from his public persona, it may not be the wife who is from hell.

paraclete · Jul 30, 2011, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

Personally, I think letting your children go hungry IS immoral.. But, that's just me - an avowed atheist.

excon

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.

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

excon · Jul 30, 2011, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

the elephant in the room, that government should not be involved in supporting the needy whether they be children, unemployed, retirees, sick or destitute

Hello again, clete:

Well, we WE'RE that way. Then we decided we could do better, and we did.

excon

paraclete · Jul 30, 2011, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

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 complaining

excon · Jul 30, 2011, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Until someone decided the bill is too big and rather than paying the bill they would let the government default on its obligations.

Hello again, clete:

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

paraclete · Jul 30, 2011, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

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?

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

excon · Jul 30, 2011, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ah Ex there is nothing like brinkmanship to focus the mind, but your anti-social bent is showing.

Hello again, clete:

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

paraclete · Jul 30, 2011, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

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 useful

speechlesstx · Aug 1, 2011, 06:50 AM

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.

talaniman · Aug 1, 2011, 01:04 PM

Months of hostage taking and posturing, but NO jobs.

speechlesstx · Aug 1, 2011, 01:35 PM

Hostage taking and posturing? You're getting awfully good at "DemocratSpeak." It means absolutely nothing but it sounds good.

spitvenom · Aug 1, 2011, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Months of hostage taking and posturing, but NO jobs.

DEAD ON. They R was elected because they ran on JOBS JOBS JOBS. Um how's that working out??

talaniman · Aug 1, 2011, 01:47 PM

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.

speechlesstx · Aug 1, 2011, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

It means creating a phony crisis, and distracting from the real issues, like growing the economy.

This coming from the side that believes you should never let a good crisis go to waste.

Maybe the TEA party should expand their vocabulary,

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.