[speechlesstx]

Your assertion of my defeat is premature. The battle wages on despite your claims of victory.

I refer to the link I posted above, the American people weren't moved by his doom and gloom. Except for Democrats, they fell for it as expected.

[speechlesstx]

Speaking of the scarequester that flopped, and especially to those of you who think Republicans were throwing children under the bus, a Maryland congressman skillfully exposed the administration's lies about vaccinations.

The CDC issued a document that said because of the sequester “2,050 fewer children will get vaccines for diseases like measles and whooping cough” in Maryland. Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland quizzed the CDC director on this:

HARRIS: Dr. Frieden, I have a great deal of concern about a document that my office got from the White House that talked about the cuts that were going to occur due to Republicans and affecting children. And I’m going to read their quote about vaccines for children. It says, in Maryland, about 2,050 fewer children will receive vaccines due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $140,000. Did the CDC assist the White House in preparing that estimate?

FRIEDEN: I would have to get back to you on that.

HARRIS: You as the director don’t know if you assisted the White House in preparing an estimate that was distributed to every member of Congress?

FRIEDEN: On that specific number, I would have to — to give you…

HARRIS: OK, let’s — let’s forget the number. Let’s forget the idea of how vaccines for children are going to be affected by the sequester. Is this the vaccine for children program?

FRIEDEN: No, it is not, sir.

HARRIS: Which program is it? Is it 317?

FRIEDEN: Yes, it is, sir.

HARRIS: And what did the president’s budget do to 317, the president’s prospective budget for 2013?

FRIEDEN: The precise numbers I would have to get back to you.

HARRIS: Does $58 million cut sound familiar?

FRIEDEN: Yes.

HARRIS: And what was the sequester cut?

FRIEDEN: Again, the precise numbers…

HARRIS: Does $30 million sound familiar?

FRIEDEN: I would…

HARRIS: You think that’s around ballpark, isn’t it? So actually, the president cut the program twice as much in his budget. Can I assume that the president’s proposed cut would have reduced funding to 4,100 children in Maryland?

FRIEDEN: As per the justification that was published with that, we’ve looked at ways that we can run the program more efficiently by helping state and local health departments recoup dollars, for example, for insured patients.

HARRIS: And you can’t do that under a sequester, but you can do it under the president’s budget? Is that my understanding of your testimony today?

FRIEDEN: I would have to get back to you on that.

HARRIS: So let me get it — let me get it straight. Under the president’s cut of $58 million to the 317 program, you think you could get around that to avoid cutting vaccines to children, but under a sequester, that the president blames on Republicans, you don’t know if you can do that?

FRIEDEN: We’re going to do everything we can to limit any damage that occurs because of the across-the-board cut, but it reduces our flexibility significantly.

HARRIS: Is it your testimony that under the president’s proposed cut of $58 million in his budget to the 317 program you could have avoided cuts to vaccines to children in Maryland?

FRIEDEN: We believe that we could have maintained vaccination levels, yes.

HARRIS: Very interesting. I yield back the balance of my time for now.

So with Democrat logic, the prez could cut $58 million and all the children will get vaccinated, but under the sequester, it's the GOP's fault that children won't get vaccinated over a cut half that size (which turned out to actually be $18 million, not $30 million).

Harris said, “When they want to do with less, they can find a way. But when they don’t want to find a way to do with less, they claim they can’t do things in a budget-restricted environment.”

Exactly.

[paraclete]

Sounds like the program is overblown anyway, look you have been saying there has been waste so the sequester should deal with that and make for more innovative solutions, so it might be a good thing. The Republicans wanted cuts, they got cuts so stop complaining

[talaniman]

So how is that any worse than hollering broke and keeping corporate welfare, and wanting to lower rich guys taxes? Its okay when you guys holler gloom and doom, which you have done for 4(5) straight years, but if we do it, NOW it's a big deal??

[speechlesstx]

So how is that any worse than hollering broke and keeping corporate welfare, and wanting to lower rich guys taxes? Its okay when you guys holler gloom and doom, which you have done for 4(5) straight years, but if we do it, NOW its a big deal?????

So far all these years of an Obama economy haven't led too much, and it's showing in the polls now.

There's a huge difference between messaging that says we can do better and the Dems constant message of "you're screwed." I mean really, Tal, you say the same thing every day about corporate welfare and making the rich richer, and/or Republicans don't care about women, children and old people - or in other words, "you're screwed."

Regardless, you've validated my earlier point that you guys will excuse any deception as long as it moves your agenda along. Shame on you.

[talaniman]

My agenda is simple since you asked, a strong effective government that's for the people by the people, as the biggest priority, against the would be rich guys robbing us through laws that they write and collude to pervert our government in their own interests, which is extracting unhindered, MO" MONEY.

Shame on you for being against that. Can't believe you think its okay to be invaded and robbed by the elites, who keep you poor and beholding to their charity.

Just like for example building a pipeline for private companies that sell the product to the world. I would build it in a minute if THEY took responsibility for the maintanance and upkeep, AND liability for any accidents, which they do NOT.

The business model is broken and corrupt, yet you say give 'em more money. Shame on you for ignoring the facts.

[smoothy]

... and yet the oil companies are the bad guys when the government makes seventy five times the profit on every gallon that the people that spend money to find, extract and refine it do after expences?

But the Government who leaches off the productive members of society isn't the bad guy?

[excon]

Hello smoothy:

But the Government who leaches off the productive members of society isn't the bad guy?

Personally, I LIKE roads. You, not so much..

Excon

[talaniman]

Nice spin, but those poor companies the government leaches off have plenty of profits and even more they hide and don't pay taxes on. Who pays for the pipeline? Who makes the profits?

The only thing better than MO' MONEY is MO' FREE MONEY from the taxpayers. I am sure your company loves you for spewing the company line, and holding the door open while they take the money and RUN!!

At least you are honest and upfront about it, and I can respect that!

[smoothy]

Nice spin, but those poor companies the government leaches off of have plenty of profits and even more they hide and don't pay taxes on. Who pays for the pipeline? Who makes the profits?

The only thing better than MO' MONEY is MO' FREE MONEY from the taxpayers. I am sure your company loves you for spewing the company line, and holding the door open while they take the money and RUN!!!!!!!!!!!

At least you are honest and upfront about it, and I can respect that!

Who is "gouging" Whom at the Pumps?

About a peny a gallon profit on a product that goes for over $4.00 is wretched?

And ex... do you believe those excise taxes only go to the roads... like our SSI taxes only go to SSI? You know that MYTHICAL LOCKBOX, that never existed?

[speechlesstx]

My agenda is simple since you asked, a strong effective government thats for the people by the people, as the biggest priority, against the would be rich guys robbing us thru laws that they write and collude to pervert our government in their own interests, which is extracting unhindered, MO" MONEY.

Shame on you for being against that. Can't believe you think its okay to be invaded and robbed by the elites, who keep you poor and beholding to their charity.

Just like for example building a pipeline for private companies that sell the product to the world. I would build it in a minute if THEY took responsibility for the maintanance and upkeep, AND liability for any accidents, which they do NOT.

The business model is broken and corrupt, yet you say give 'em more money. Shame on you for ignoring the facts.

So in other words, you're OK defrauding the American people.

[tomder55]

Just like for example building a pipeline for private companies that sell the product to the world. I would build it in a minute if THEY took responsibility for the maintanance and upkeep, AND liability for any accidents, which they do NOT.

And here I thought you liked building infrastructure.

[talaniman]

What part of financial responsibility, and liability are you having a problem with, Tom? Are companies like BP not accountable for the lives, and livelihoods they adversely affected? Was Exxon?

[smoothy]

Obama killed more people by accident Jince January than BP has in total the last 29 years.

[tomder55]

What part of financial responsibility, and liability are you having a problem with, Tom? Are companies like BP not accountable for the lives, and livelihoods they adversely affected? Was Exxon?

So let me get this straight. You would prefer that the oil from North Dakota get inefficiently trucked to refineries or travel on a Warren Buffett owned freight line rather than piping it down ? Yeah that's Dems logic.. Did you think that perhaps you charge the companies that are using the pipeline for the service ? That the pipeline is a source of tax revenues ? That tens of thousand of Americans get hired because the pipe line is there ? Maybe that by piping it down there is less of a carbon footprint if that's your concern.
Of course not . Your only concern is to stick it to the rich guy.

[smoothy]

so let me get this straight. You would prefer that the oil from North Dakota get inefficiently trucked to refineries or travel on a Warren Buffett owned freight line rather than piping it down ? Yeah that's Dems logic .. Did you think that perhaps you charge the companies that are using the pipeline for the service ? That the pipeline is a source of tax revenues ? That tens of thousand of Americans get hired because the pipe line is there ? Maybe that by piping it down there is less of a carbon footprint if that's your concern.
Of course not . Your only concern is to stick it to the rich guy.

Unless it's their rich guy... Like Buffet or Soros... then they are right behind making THEM richer.

[paraclete]

Lots of sour grapes here guys, for the record no problem with building a pipeline but that really isn't the issue is it? The issue is that the oil comes from a place where it is environmentally unfriendly to extract it and there are other sources of oil, so we will just dispense with your strawman arguments that this is about business or employment at any price

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

so let me get this straight. You would prefer that the oil from North Dakota get inefficiently trucked to refineries

I don't know about tal, but I'd prefer they build the pipeline to the ports at BC. They're only going to ship the oil out.

Uhhhh.. That's not our oil. We didn't buy it and it's not going to be used for US. I know you thought otherwise, and THAT'S why you shouldn't watch FOX News.

Excon

[smoothy]

I guess that's on the new updated version of the DNC talking points after der Fuhers OH-pocalypse predictions where ALL shot down.

[talaniman]

So in other words, you're OK defrauding the American people.

Looks whose putting words in other peoples mouths!

so let me get this straight. You would prefer that the oil from North Dakota get inefficiently trucked to refineries or travel on a Warren Buffett owned freight line rather than piping it down ? Yeah that's Dems logic.. Did you think that perhaps you charge the companies that are using the pipeline for the service ? That the pipeline is a source of tax revenues ? That tens of thousand of Americans get hired because the pipe line is there ? Maybe that by piping it down there is less of a carbon footprint if that's your concern.
Of course not . Your only concern is to stick it to the rich guy.

Lets not forget the private lands that must be bought at a fair price, and the history of oil companies responding to accidents, DEQ - 2010 Oil Spill/ Kalamazoo River, do I have to post links for Exxon and BP? To name one of many, and to be fair sticking it to rich guys is the last thing on my mind.

Originally Posted by talaniman

Just like for example building a pipeline for private companies that sell the product to the world. I would build it in a minute if THEY took responsibility for the maintanance and upkeep, AND liability for any accidents, which they do NOT.

Guess you missed something in your zeal to spew right wing talking points. Gues you are excited that CPAC is trotting out its line up of losers and also ran to throw red meat to the starving disolutioned WingNuts.