Hello:

The War on Christmas is getting more brutal than ever this season. This time it isn't just pagan cashiers saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Those devious liberals are finding more and more subtle, insidious ways to piss off Christians...

Senate Republicans are doing their usual stalling tactics against the new START agreement, the omnibus appropriations bill, DADT; you name it. Time is running out. And now Harry Reid — did somebody give him a spine for Christmas? — has announced that the Senate will work through the Holidays, if that's what it takes to get their work done.

This SACRILEGE, this persecution of Christians, does not sit well with Senator Jon Kyl:

“It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing — frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff.”

I wonder if the soldiers in Afghanistan are going to get Christmas off. I wonder if less well off, are going to get Christmas off. Nahhh. They won't. But, that's not sacrilege... Nope, not a bit.

Of course, if the Senate would just VOTE on these bills — instead of filibustering and delaying and putting holds on everything — they'd probably finish their work in time to go home tomorrow. But try explaining that to a Republican. Of course, it's clear to even the most casual observer, that their "work" ISN'T to do the country's business. It's to defeat Obama at every turn.

Meanwhile, Jon Kyl - to borrow a phrase from one of his biggest idols - would like his life back.

excon

I want an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the arcane and unnecessary lame duck sessions after the elections. There is no reason why a meaningful transition can't take place immediately after results are in.


Reid ,Pelosi and the President are jamming all types of BS into these last second legislations that are designed to undermine the constitutional role of the legislature . Included in these bills are provisions for Dept. Heads to have greater disgression in spending budgetted money ,eliminating the oversight control the Congress has on the money it allocates .
There is back door funding for Obamacare in the Omnibus bill and hundreds of pages of pork... much of which is authored by legislators that are seeing their last days in Congress.

Reid and Pelosi defied law and delayed the passing of the budget before the election so they could play this game.

And yes,I'm sure the Republicans when they were the majority did similar things.

This has to end. The Dems were repudiated in the last election. The people decided . They should not have this much power in the last 2 months of a term . The Founders never intended the lame duck session to have an impact. It was designed to tie up loose ends at a time when it took weeks and months to travel to Washington.
Those times have past. It's time to change the Constitution to reflect that.

So bottom line... the more days off Congress takes the better I like it . All they really need to do is get their job done before elections.

Is it any wonder congress has a new record low approval rating of 13 percent? Can they get any more tone deaf than that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Reid ,Pelosi and the President are jamming all types of BS into these last second legislations

---

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, a few Republicans are jamming too... But, they got caught...
----------------------------------

"The bill is loaded up with pork projects, and it shouldn't get a vote," Thune said.

"I think this is an outrage," railed Cornyn.

But Thune and Cornyn have tens of millions of dollars for their own earmarks in the bill, including Thune's request for $8 million for B-1 bomber fleet maintenance and Cornyn's request for $1.6 million for the Texas Army National Guard Counter-Drug Task Force.

Pork for me, but not for thee..

excon

Seems to me both those requests are matters of natonal defense .

Edit however ,they should be added to appropriate legislation.

There are many establishment Republicans that don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

seems to me both those requests are matters of natonal defense

---

Hello again, tom:

I understand completely... When YOU guys do earmarks/pork, it's for the good of the country... But, when Democrats do it, they're spending us into oblivion..

It's like when the Dems GROW the government, it's called socialism, but when you guys do it, it's called heroism...

I understand completely.

excon

The bigger story is that in the House (yes that House that is going majority Republican next year ) ;where all spending bills originate , only 4 (count them 4) Republicans requested any pork in the bill. This group of 4 is led by your favorite Republican Ron Paul. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 .

Besides the 4 ,the rest of the Republican Congressional delegation honored the moratorium.

Taxpayers for Common Sense released a database Tuesday of all the earmarks requested by members of Congress for Fiscal Year 2011. Over $130 billion was requested across 39,294 earmarks. With most House Republicans abstaining from the process, the majority of those requests came from Congressional Democrats. House Democrats requested over $51 billion, outpaced by Senate Democrats with just under $55 billion. On the other hand Senate Republicans only asked for $22 billion, with the four House Republicans accounting for a little over $1 billion in earmark requests. Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu had the highest request total for the year at around $4.5 billion.

So have your fun at the expense of the 2 Republican Senators . The Republicans shine compared to the wasteful budget busting spending the Dems propose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So have your fun at the expense of the 2 Republican Senators . The Republicans shine compared to the wasteful budget busting spending the Dems propose

---

Hello again, tom:

Ceptin for when they want to borrow TRILLIONS to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. That's takes the gloss right off 'em...

Look. I'm for balancing the budget - not for LOOKING like you're balancing the budget... Let's see how your guys do when it COUNTS. Talk is cheap (we've been here before).

excon

You mean they want to keep the same tax rates we have had for a decade for all taxpayers.

The only mistakes made in the past was maintaining spending levels . You want to see moonbats howl ? The way to do that is to actually slash spending . These clowns think keeping spending levels constant ,or at the level of inflation is the same as cutting the budget.

Spit... if the Phillies don't win the World Series I'll be shocked .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Spit .....if the Phillies don't win the World Series I'll be shocked .

---

I don't get it. Last night on ESPN somebody said this is the greatest pitching rotation in baseball history. Huh? Yeah, they're good, but the best ever?

Their W-L combined stats are not super impressive. Lee, apparently, can't pitch in the American League (DH).

How about Baltimore in the early 70's? Cleveland in 1949-50. (Btw, RIP Bob Feller - who joined the Navy two days after Pearl Harbor and lost 4 years of 20-25 win seasons, probably).

Ok, back to whatever this thread was about before the interruption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You mean they want to keep the same tax rates we have had for a decade for all taxpayers.

---

Hello again, tom:

That's exactly what it is... And, that will cause us to borrow at least $4 BILLION to cover the budget shortfall that is going to occur as a result of lower revenue. However you want to spin it, it's a big addition to the deficit, and it's NOT a particularly good way to begin if you profess to be concerned about spending.

excon

I'm a JFK kind of guy. I think that lower taxes stimulate the economy and as a results revenues to the government grows. Before the recession the government was awash in money from tax revenue . They just spent faster than it came in ,adding huge new entitlements in the last decade.
...
Athos.
Hard to argue with the 4 20 game winners on the 1971 Orioles team of Jim Palmer, Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Pat Dobson, That will probably not be duplicated in a 5 man rotation. The 1954 Indian team you speak of had greats Early Wynn, Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Mike Garcia.The 95 Braves had Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Steve Avery... not too shabby .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I think that lower taxes stimulate the economy and as a results revenues to the government grows.

---

And that has been sooooooooooo true during the past ten years of tax cuts! People just can't wait to get into the malls to spend, spend, spend! Thank goodness for those big companies that have been creating all those good-paying jobs!

The undeniable facts .
Federal revenues increased 21.42% in the Bush years . From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. But during that same time, Congress increased spending by 72.27%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm a JFK kinda guy. I think that lower taxes stimulate the economy and as a results revenues to the government grows.

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm a Sim City kind of guy. I believe there's a PERFECT tax rate. Finding it, is the problem. If you go above it, you depress economic activity, and lower tax revenues. If you go below it, revenue declines simply because you're not collecting enough money... I believe a continuation of tax cuts for the rich fall into the second category.

IF, I ask, the rich need this tax cut in order to create jobs, why didn't they create any over the last four years? They HAD this rate two years ago, and didn't create any jobs... Why would you think they'll create jobs now?

If lower taxes all by themselves was the answer, why don't we lower it to ZERO?

excon

Quote:

---

I believe there's a PERFECT tax rate.

---

So am I ,and it is in that zero range when it comes to income tax. Tax consumption if you must . Income taxes is an invention of the welfare state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm a JFK kinda guy. I think that lower taxes stimulate the economy and as a results revenues to the government grows. Before the recession the government was awash in money from tax revenue . They just spent faster than it came in ,adding huge new entitlements in the last decade.
.......................................
Athos.
Hard to argue with the 4 20 game winners on the 1971 Orioles team of Jim Palmer, Dave McNally, Mike Cuellar, Pat Dobson, . That will probably not be duplicated in a 5 man rotation. The 1954 Indian team you speak of had greats Early Wynn, Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Mike Garcia.The 95 Braves had Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Steve Avery ...not too shabby .

---

Taxes----

This is the argument of the Right - that lower taxes always are an economic stimulant that bring in more tax revenue to the government. It's a half-truth. Lowering HIGH taxes is a stimulant - say rates around 70%+. Lowering (relatively) low taxes is not a stimulant, and no economist on either side has ever given convincing proof that it is. If it WERE true, I think by now there would be general agreement on it.

Baseball -----

Thanks for naming the names - I couldn't remember them all (and the 95 Braves). An aside on pitching - the current World Champions, the Giants, have a long, honored tradition of fielding terrific teams since 1880 or so. But their losing WS records reflect a lack of pitching, even with greats like Mathewson, McGinnity, Hubbell, Marichal, etc. (In fact, I think the Giants have more Hall of Famers than any other team - I could be wrong about that).

But, pitching, as someone said, is the name of the game.

Athos . I direct you to my comment #15

I might add that the Dems think the same way . They just call it things like rebates instead of "temporary " cuts... all while increasing discretionary spending .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Athos . I direct you to my comment #15

---

I read that, Tom. But you do remember that the years you cited were when the criminals in Wall Street were perpetrating their fraud on the world economy?

When Paulson (John, not Henry) et al were pocketing billions, of course tax revenues increased. These crooks were only too happy to pay their taxes. A very small price to pay.

Now that the world economy is in shambles, does anyone seriously believe that tax revenue from ill-gotten gains are the way to go? Ask any one of the 15 million unemployed.

The point - there is more to an economy than tax rates. To suggest that lowering rates for the richest will somehow solve or reduce the problem is nonsense.

Bubbles, and their resultant increase to government revenue, sooner or later, come home to roost and hit hardest those least able to manage while the perps retire happily to their mansions.