Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jan 2, 2013, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

I guess all the legislation from now on has to start in the senate and go to the house to be approved which is backwards but the only way to govern against the backward leaning house republicans.

Hope the next batch has more sense.

Lol ,the obstructionist Harry Reid had to be evicted from his own chamber so the VEEP and the Minority leader could dictate a deal ;a deal that did nothing but kick the can down the road 2 months .

speechlesstx · Jan 2, 2013, 08:41 AM

That would be Reid the obstructionist who refuses to take up House legislation that has been passed.

tomder55 · Jan 2, 2013, 12:37 PM

Good thing they voted us off the brink of the cliff... after all ;how would we get to pay for all this pork ? How would Rum producers ,Hollywierdos ,NASCAR ,and Algae growers survive without the largess of the US tax payer ?

Fiscal Cliff Bill Loaded With Pork - US News and World Report

talaniman · Jan 2, 2013, 12:47 PM

Or NASCAR??

tomder55 · Jan 2, 2013, 12:59 PM

Ridiculous isn't it ? Not one law maker that voted for or against the bill read it . Not one !

paraclete · Jan 2, 2013, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

good thing they voted us off the brink of the cliff .... after all ;how would we get to pay for all this pork ? How would Rum producers ,Hollywierdos ,NASCAR ,and Algae growers survive without the largess of the US tax payer ?

Fiscal Cliff Bill Loaded With Pork - US News and World Report

Nothing new there Tom just kicking the can down the road but why are you complaining that your corportate friends get a handout

tomder55 · Jan 2, 2013, 02:42 PM

Because I'm consistent and have always complained about pork spending .

paraclete · Jan 2, 2013, 04:01 PM

Tom there is a price for everything, you know that and republican pork is just as much a reality as democratic pork. I'm amazed that there was so much ruckus about so little result. This is just a small part of the annual deficit. Is it that pork exists at all or is it it advantages the wrong people. This taxation change makes a 60 billion a year impact, that is nothing in the deficit or the debt. When are they going to argue the real issues?

tomder55 · Jan 2, 2013, 04:32 PM

Again ;I don't care which party is responsible for the pork spending .the truth is that if it merits congressional consideration it should be the subject of independent legislation ;and not hidden in a massive tax or spending bill.

This is just a small part of the annual deficit. Is it that pork exists at all or is it it advantages the wrong people. This taxation change makes a 60 billion a year impact, that is nothing in the deficit or the debt. When are they going to argue the real issues?

They won't because it would mean fundamental changes to their sacred cows... entitlements .

paraclete · Jan 2, 2013, 04:44 PM

Tom I agree with you about appropriations, this is why such measures are not allowed here, however, aren't you complaining about continuation of existing programs, and not new programs? Undoubtedly these measures were tacked on to something in the past and so you have past congresses to thank for them and a Congress now past for continuing them. You should root out the real culprits and determine who enacted these measures in the first place

tomder55 · Jan 2, 2013, 05:17 PM

I don't know the origin nor do I care. New spending ;old spending ;it's bad spending and a waste of taxpayer's money. Today there is faux outrage over the fact that the House did not pass a so called 'Sandy relief bill'... that is dripping with so much unnecessary wasteful pork that I doubt that any of the money will ever reach the people here who need it .

talaniman · Jan 2, 2013, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

again ;I don't care which party is responsible for the pork spending .the truth is that if it merits congressional consideration it should be the subject of independent legislation ;and not hidden in a massive tax or spending bill.

They won't because it would mean fundamental changes to their sacred cows ...entitlements .

Or the bloated defense budget.

paraclete · Jan 2, 2013, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Or the bloated defense budget.

Indeed you could halve military expenditure and still have the most effective military in the world, but you won't do it because of the economic impact

tomder55 · Jan 3, 2013, 06:37 AM

How about some Democrap sacred cows ?

Like the cut and paste of a Senate bill crafted in August (The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012) into the fiscal cliff bill that gave massive subsidies ;not only to the ones cited above , but also gave special interest tax credits to GE,Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup . You think GE needed any more taxpayer subsidies ? You think "banks too big to fail " need subsidies ?
Now get this.. the bill sat on the shelf after the Dem Senate passed it in August ;and that's where it would've stayed except that the President insisted that the bill be added into the fiscal cliff bill. Yeah that's right ;the same man who demagogued against corporate greed during the campaign .This came after the President demanded that a whole slew of temporary corporate tax credits be made permanent . The Repubics refused to sign on to that ,but did allow the bill from August to get into the bill as a rider.So Title II of the fiscal cliff legislation is a word for word replication of the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012.

speechlesstx · Jan 3, 2013, 07:15 AM

Waiting to see if we hear nothing but crickets chirping over that one...

talaniman · Jan 3, 2013, 08:03 AM

CBO | Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012

Letter on the "Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012" | U.S. Chamber of Commerce

http://www.adp.com/pdf/FINAL-SFC-Extenders-Markup1.pdf

I doubt you read the whole thing or even see that repubs even supported it.

excon · Jan 3, 2013, 08:04 AM

Hello again,

Waiting to see if we hear nothing but crickets chirping over that one...

Chirp, chirp...

Look. I don't know WHY you think I carry water for the Democrats... If it was ME, I would have cancelled the DEA.

Here's another thing that'll make you happy... I want CUTS too. I want DEEP cuts. I know how to add. I'm a SMALL government liberal.. It's just that MY cuts wouldn't be YOUR cuts. But, I'd BALANCE the books, and you could take THAT to the bank.

Excon

excon · Jan 3, 2013, 08:09 AM

Hello again,

Let me ask you this.. What if the Republicans said they wouldn't raise the debt ceiling unless they got what they wanted, and the Democrats said, proceed?

Who'd be blamed?

excon

speechlesstx · Jan 3, 2013, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Chirp, chirp...

Look. I dunno WHY you think I carry water for the Democrats... If it was ME, I woulda cancelled the DEA.

Here's another thing that'll make you happy... I want CUTS too. I want DEEP cuts. I know how to add. I'm a SMALL government liberal.. It's just that MY cuts wouldn't be YOUR cuts. But, I'd BALANCE the books, and you could take THAT to the bank.

excon

And yet you fought tooth and nail for a guy you know wants to spend us into oblivion. Your math don't add up.

excon · Jan 3, 2013, 08:46 AM

Hello again, Steve:

And yet you fought tooth and nail for a guy you know wants to spend us into oblivion. Your math don't add up.

Uhhh, I don't know that.

What I DO know, is that you wingers TALK about fiscal responsibility, but when you get the checkbook, you SPEND, and SPEND, and SPEND, and then SPEND some more...

So, if Romney had won, he would have spent money we don't have on wars and more tax cuts for the rich, so, I'd RATHER have a guy who's going to spend money on the health of his people...

My math may not add up, but my MEMORY does. Now, if it was ME, I'd make cuts.

Excon

PS> Are you going to answer about you guys refusing to raise the debt ceiling?