[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Ex, what is Obama's plan?

In terms of THIS particular issue, take a look at the grand bargain that the Republicans REFUSED to do.. In terms of the REST of his agenda, add up the total of what the senate BLOCKED, and you'll have the rest of his plan... He hasn't been shy about proposing legislation..

Excon

[talaniman]

Nice try Tom, but the Heritage Foundation is hardly non partisan,

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they have an agenda based on conservative views,

■Improve economic performance by lowering marginal tax rates and making other growth-oriented changes;
Another name for trickle down economics
■Enact a new tax code that raises the same amount of revenue as the previous tax code (revenue neutrality);
No deficit reduction thru taxes
■Broaden the tax base to achieve revenue neutrality; and
Redistributes taxes to the lower 20%
■Maintain the current distribution of the tax burden across all income levels (distributional neutrality).
Raises no new revenue

The American economy is consumer driven and ignoring the DEMAND part of supply and demand is a recipe to stop economic circulation and strangle the economy.

That's not capitalism, but extractionism. Wealth redistribution to the already rich that eliminates the safety nets and government services to cities and states and shifts the burdens of servicing the debt to the ones that have the fewest resources thus slowing, if not stopping any growth potential.

In case you cannot see the implications of such policy, let me break it down in real practical terms for you.

Sucking all the loot from the economy is robbery!!

Clinton had it right but rich guys rather have a deficit, serviced on the backs of everyone but the 1%, so they can control the money and have a ready army to go invade and extract the wealth of other countries.

Keeping us all in line with a theocracy that protects the plutocrisy, and aided and abetted by right wing loonies who hope to one day enjoy their own ascendence into the oligarchy, and wield power themselves.

The business model is broken, and has become a system of wealth extraction that hordes resources, and subverts the goals of the many to the values set by the few.

I submit the ideas of Mitt Romney as the example to be rejected by the American people, and all those who cut there own throats to fulfillthe lies and promises of FALSE hope by those who worship power, and money as their god, under the guise of capitalism.

ITS NOT!! But it will be funny if it were not so sad the right wing loony tunes will in the end want there due.

Nice try though but we are all wary of another business man conservative who wants to return to the old policies that damn near destroyed the world economy.

George W. Bush Haunts Mitt Romney - Bloomberg

2012 is not 2000. We have deficits rather than a balanced budget. We have historically high unemployment rather than historically low unemployment. We've seen what the financial system can do when left unchecked. We've watched tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 fail to spark economic growth and seen a rising stock market fail to lift middle-class wages. We do need new thinking. But Romney isn't offering any. His problem isn't that the public is unfairly judging him by Bush's policies. It's that they're fairly judging him by Bush's policies.

Romney Will Solve the Crisis with the Exact Same GOP Plan of 2008, 2006, 2004... | Next New Deal

But the same playbook is there in 2006, as it was in 2004 and 2008, and as it is in 2012. Domestic oil production, school choice, trade agreements, cut spending and reduce taxes and regulations -- it's been the conservative answer to times of deep economic stress, times of economic recovery, times of economic worries, and times of economic panic. Which is another way of saying that the Republicans have no plan for how to actually deal with this specific crisis we face.

The conservative solution is to go back to the failed policies of GWB.

[speechlesstx]

The biggest lie of the night :

And he said it with a straight face?

[talaniman]

Romney has lied with a straight face for years so DUH!!

[speechlesstx]

In terms of THIS particular issue, take a look at the grand bargain that the Republicans REFUSED to do.. In terms of the REST of his agenda, add up the total of what the senate BLOCKED, and you'll have the rest of his plan... He hasn't been shy about proposing legislation..

Well that's about the most obvious dodge I've ever seen.

FYI, the Republican-led House brought Obama's $3.6 trillion budget up for a vote this year. It went down 414-0. In the Senate which no longer bothers with budgetsit went down 99-0. His previous budget went down 97-0 in the Senate.

No, he's not shy but even his own party doesn't take him seriously. I mean hey, that's 610-0 in 3 votes.

[tomder55]

Nice try Tom, but the Heritage Foundation is hardly non partisan,

And neither is the Tax Policy Center . You use your 'fact checkers ' and I'll use mine.

[talaniman]

Well that's about the most obvious dodge I've ever seen.

FYI, the Republican-led House brought Obama's $3.6 trillion budget up for a vote this year. It went down 414-0. In the Senate which no longer bothers with budgetsit went down 99-0. His previous budget went down 97-0 in the Senate.

No, he's not shy but even his own party doesn't take him seriously. I mean hey, that's 610-0 in 3 votes.

Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote - The Hill's Floor Action

The House earlier this year unanimously rejected Obama's budget.

The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama's budget because it did not include policy report language.

Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.

The Senate also voted on four GOP budget blueprints, which were all defeated.

President's budget sinks, 97-0 - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

The president's budget called for ending tax cuts for the wealthy and a three-year domestic spending freeze, saving an estimated $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democratic senators at the time called it “an important step forward”, “a good start” and a “credible blueprint.”

No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail.

You asked.

[talaniman]

and neither is the Tax Policy Center . You use your 'fact checkers ' and I'll use mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Based in Washington D.C. United States, it aims to provide independent analyses of current and longer-term tax issues and to communicate its analyses to the public and to policymakers in a timely and accessible manner. The Center combines national experts in tax, expenditure, budget policy, and microsimulation modeling to concentrate on four overarching areas of tax policy that are critical to future debate: fair, simple and efficient taxation, social policy in the tax code, long-term implications of tax and budget choices, and state tax issues.

You guys are biased.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

FYI, the Republican-led House brought Obama's $3.6 trillion budget up for a vote this year. It went down 414-0.

Considering that you just said Obama was a liar, I wouldn't have posted THIS right wing lie. But, you guys got balls, that's for sure... I've heard you spread this piece of trash before too, but I hopped you'd come to your senses WITHOUT me slamming you first. Wishful thinking, huh?

Here's the truth about those votes.

You are correct that the two times Congress voted on the president's budget requests, both times they were voted down. But the job of passing a budget resolution is not the president's. That responsibility falls to Congress, and even then the president doesn't sign it. The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes.

Citing those votes leaves a wrong impression, namely that the votes were ANYTHING MORE than political theater. I would STOP cruising those right wing websites if I was you..

Excon

[tomder55]

The House has passed budgets . They sit on Harry Reid's shelf collecting dust. Since they then refuse to pass their own version ; so a budget never gets to a conference committee.
No ;it is the Dems that have caused gridlock .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

No ;it is the Dems that have caused gridlock .

Maybe you can explain something then... You know how government works. Spending originates in the House.. If they don't authorize it, it don't get spent...

But, if the Senate BLOCKED those budgets as you say, how is the government paying its bills TODAY? We ARE paying our bills, no? SOMEBODY must have passed a budget somewhere.

Excon

[talaniman]

Does Congress Even Need to Pass a Budget?

So how does the federal government operate without a budget?

With a whole lot of “Continuing Resolutions.” These bills, called “minibuses” by those who are gleefully in the know, keep the government going by feeding the beast with more money every couple of months. The last one that had a fuss surrounding it came late last year, just before the Christmas holidays, when a partial government shutdown loomed. Congress was embroiled in a fight over the payroll tax extension, and the passage of the budgetary measure was used as a bargaining ploy in the tussle. (Congress eventually passed the payroll tax extension in February of this year.)

I know, it's a liberal source, but conservatives seldom tell the truth!

[excon]

Hello tal:

I didn't know that.. So, the "continuing resolutions" pass, don't they? Presumably they're NOT blocked. Soooo, if the REAL spending stuff isn't blocked, what's the point in telling us about blocking things that don't count? Do they think we're going to go for the okee doak?

excon

[talaniman]

Its like when Romney said he would take every opportunity that comes up to bash the president, and make everyone think Obama's policies have failed and his foreign policy is unraveling.

Its just like the voter suppression and war on women, tactics to take the government back, and hide THEIR tactics.

Its like calling the working poor lazy and irresponsible so you don't call them on their irresponsibility,and blatant robbery (LEGAL of course).

Its like the war on drugs, sounds good doesn't it? Who goes to jail? Not Johnny in the Burbs where most of the good dope is used!

They point a finger and blame YOU for what they are doing, knowing they have enough loonies to not see that THEY are doing it. Best example is voter fraud and that Sproul guy.

What you fell for that INTEGRITY of the vote spin?? You think the right will admit they want ALL the money, and you get NONE??

[speechlesstx]

You asked

I didn't ask anything, but thanks for confirming what I already said.

[speechlesstx]

In what seems to be an increasingly silly season of the President of the United States running a campaign on "liar, liar pants on fire," Big Bird and binders, Chris "tingle" Matthews thinks it's unconstitutional to tell POTUS "you'll get your chance."

What a moron.

[NeedKarma]

I'm sure it's OK thought for Romney's son to offer up that he'd like to take a swipe at the president. That's some good child rearing there.

[speechlesstx]

As far as I know jokes are still protected by the constitution also.

[NeedKarma]

If only it were...

[speechlesstx]

And by the way, I think it is pretty good child rearing when a son comes to the defense of his dad for him repeatedly being called a liar, ESPECIALLY by the president.