Open Thread: Are Republicans Playing Into Obama's Hands?
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have both released debt limit plans, but if House Republicans don't support Boehner's plan, they could be handing President Obama an easy victory.
The debt limit debate has not only sharply divided Republicans and Democrats, but it might also be forcing a schism among Republicans who favor a permanent solution now versus Republicans who want a temporary fix with better solutions later, opening the door for Reid's plan to gain greater support. Do you think Republicans should support an imperfect Boehner plan? Or do you think they should avoid compromise and find a better solution? Let us know what you think in the comments.
If Boehner can pass his plan through the House, Obama would no longer have an easy GOP scapegoat for problems with the economy. If Boehner's plan doesn't pass, though, Obama would be able to blame the "childish" Republicans who don't want to compromise on debt ceiling negotiations. As explained in the Wall Street Journal,
Under the two-phase Boehner plan, Congress would authorize $1 trillion in new debt in return for $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade. [...]
In the second stage, the House and Senate would convene a 12-member joint select committee with a deficit reduction goal of $1.8 trillion by November. [...]
If the Boehner plan fails in the House, the advantage shifts to Mr. Reid's Senate plan, which would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion in one swoop through 2012. [...]
There are also a number of critics to Boehner's plan, including Sen. Jim DeMint.
The Boehner-Reid plan gives the President an immediate increase in the debt limit and only promises to cut spending in the future. It violates all three principles of the Cut-Cap-Balance Pledge because it does not substantially cut current spending, it does not truly cap future spending, and it does not require the passage of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the debt limit.
Do you think if conservatives defeat Boehner's plan, they'll be falling in step with what Obama wants them to do? Or do you think a better plan will emerge in the near future?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
On the Fast and Furious Front
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:00pm.
There was so much information that came out of the congressional hearing yesterday that my pea brain could not absorb all. I am still working on it. Here's a link to go look at all the news for yourself. A link has been established between the ATF and the WH. William Newell sent an e-mail to a member, can't recall the name, of the National Security Council on Fast and Furious. Newell pulled a rope a dope that Cassius Clay would have been proud of.
The Democrats are still trying to turn this into a gun control issue. Connolly of VA wants to blame the Congress. He said there as not been a permanent director of the ATF since 2006 and that the ATF has not been fully funded. Who ran the Congress from January of 2007 to January of 2011?
Eleanor Holmes Norton was well Eleanor Holmes Norton. She needs to go have a Rickey or three. She is not shy about sitting around a bar.
Elijah Cummings has to throw in his line of BS.
I'm not really caring much at this point
Submitted by OffTheLows on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:23pm.
I'm losing big money in the markets this week primarily because of this issue. It's time to settle this idiocy and return some certainty to the economy. Compromise and debate the long term unsustainable entitlement spending in the '12 elections. No matter what the resolution, there will be another debt limit debate in '13 for hopefully the next administration to tackle with hopefully a shorter timeline to a balanced budget.
Trust!
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:28pm.
I don't trust ANY politician in Washington today. Someone is reporting an over 300% net worth gain in personal income for the bums in recent times. That being said, sadly I believe the best strategy at this time is to strike a short-term deal and then hit 'em with all we've got in November 2012. Also, begin to ratchet up the talk of term limits.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
RE: Term Limits
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:19pm.
Term limits sound good, but there are some problems. What happens when term limits oust someone who honestly does a good job? And when they oust someone who's 'service' leaves quite a lot to be desired, they just go to the next available office. Term limits won't really solve anything, and it'll create a round-robin cycle in politics. What needs to happen is that people shouldn't vote for idiots; but until that day comes, let's put our focus on limiting the government so we can minimise the damage that such turkeys cause for everyone. Minimising the Federal government's influence and authority is the best strategy to keep people like Pelosi, Obama, and Reid in check, because without that power they have very little to gain. Take away the incentive.
How about this for an idea: let's take away their perks and fringe benefits, and stop their pork. Make it as difficult as possible to self-serve oneself in office. And tie them to the same programs they institute for the people - as elected representatives of the public, they can participate in all public programs, rather than establishing their own comfy programs.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
Term limits and why they are a bad idea
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:17pm.
Good post. Term limits are just a way for lazy people to continue being lazy.
San Antonio city government has had term limits since 1991. They were extended in 2009. But from what I have seen, you are better off just giving the victor in the election a single four-year (now eight-year) term. What has happened? People might think their councilman ot the mayor is a bum, but they don't care - "They'll be term-limited out anyway after four (now eight) years. Yawn. Who cares."
The only thing I have seen term limits do is increase voter apathy and laziness.
There is another example. CA has had term limits since 1990. Does ANYBODY point to Sacramento as an example of decent governance? Part of the reason for this are the term limits which again, from my San Antonio experience, suggests only increases voter laziness.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
We have term limits: the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:23pm.
We have term limits: the ballot box.
Answer me this.....
Submitted by Missouri Conser... on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:25pm.
What if Boehner passes his bill, and then promptly adjourns the House until the middle of September?
Wait, I thought "plan" was a
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:26pm.
Wait, I thought "plan" was a bad word around here?
All this shows once again is that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. There are no cuts to entitlements or defense, which together account for more than 75% of government spending. The only "cuts" that are being talked about are "cuts" to proposed increases in spending. So instead of increasing spending by $3 trillion, for example, it'll be increased by $2 trillion and the Repubs will call the leftover $1 trillion a cut.
You're all being played.
GOP's CCB
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:35pm.
did include cuts to defense and entitlement reform. Reid tabled it; Obama won't sign it.
No, it did not. "Mr.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:45pm.
No, it did not.
"Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit. When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally. First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare."
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1894:...
I stand corrected
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:16pm.
Ryan's budget addresses entitlement reform. CCB places a limit on the cost of the Global War on Terror. [edited]
That doesn't sound right, but
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:23pm.
That doesn't sound right, but I suppose it depends on their definition of limit. Do you have a link to the specific language in the bill?
Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:45pm.
(d) GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM. If a bill or joint
14 resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal
15 year 2012 that provides funding for the global war on ter
16 rorism, the allowable adjustments provided for in sub
17 section (c) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed
18 $126,544,000,000 in budget authority and the outlays
19 flowing therefrom.
I tried to find the current budget for the GWoT but since we're operating on CR's, it's difficult to discern. I don't know if this is an increase or decrease, though I suspect CCB represents a decrease given the known draw-down plans.
So that's just a limit on the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:26pm.
So that's just a limit on the adjustment.
The Global War on Terror
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:27pm.
Maybe we need to stop trying to fight a conventional war against non-conventional adversaries. Terrorists don't fight under a flag, they are not organised, and they do not fight under the rules of war - and how can we be at war with them, as they are not part of a formalised army raised by a recognised power? We need a new approach to protecting ourselves from terrorism and countering that threat.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:17pm.
How exactly are we fighting a conventional war against them?
And are you British, Australian or Canadian?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ryan's Budget
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:58pm.
Ryan's Budget makes no serious cuts to any programs. There was a lot of flak about nothing - mainly because he is a Republican. The claim that his budget is some kind of massive Conservative statement is plainly ridiculous. No programs are cut. His budget shouldn't be acceptable.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
Foer the sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:21pm.
This is exactly why your God should not even be a dogcatcher, sick freak. Both you and he swear you are the biggest lovers of the Constitution anywhere, yet neither of you will be happy until the defense budget is $0 because this country will never, ever be a big enough wimp on the world stage.
In short, NEITHER of you support the Constitution because both of you are deeply horrified that the cold hard truth that the United States simply does not exist out of the kindness of other people's hearts.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, are you going to hold the blotter for Mr.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:04am.
Paulturd, then blot his signature when he surrenders the U.S. to AQ? Or, to AQIAP? Or China? Russia? Just curious, as you certainly seem to fall right in with O when it comes to cutting defense.
Dangerous mythology
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:48pm.
To Incestmo and Mr. Paul, Incestmo's hero, freedom is 100% free and is there just for the asking.
My recent trip to a nearby national cemetery where I have relatives buried is full of evidence that says otherwise.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What duh flock?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:40pm.
Satchmo! You are right!
NOBODY is talking about cutting shiite, except the rate of growth. It is genetically impossible for a politician in Washington to actually reduce what we are spending. All they seem to be able to do is reduce the rate that we are going to hell in a hand basket, and this time we can't even do that with Mookie and Moochie in the White House..
They call that farce, a reduction in spending. That's like me saying that last Happy Hour I spent $50 on drinks and tip, and next Happy Hour I planned to spend $70, but I'm ONLY going to spend $65, so I have cut my spending on booze!
Like my wife goes shopping and finds a $400 dress on sale for ONLY $300, so she comes home and tells me she ""saved" $100! After several years of that (I kept records) I bought a new boat, and when she asked what I used to buy it, I told her it was from all the money she had saved on "bargains" in the past.
Maybe I should send her to Washington.
Not sure about wife
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:55pm.
....but YOU are definitely qualified.
I love how the media is giving us "hard liners" the business for being obstinate. What they forget is that the R's who are saying NO are doing exactly what we elected them to do.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Ain't dat duh troof!?!?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:52pm.
I'd love for Rubio and Ryan to just form their own cabal and dig in and let the whole damned government grind to a halt when the money tops out. I'm betting that we could survive just fine by laying off a few zillion civil servants in Washington, and stop paying administration and congressional personnel including the President and all congress members. Forget the cops and firemen and teachers. They are paid by the states, and they may get a pay reduction for a period, but they would keep working. I have that much faith in them.
Once they had the attention of Congress, they could get a reasonable bill passed.
Unrelated question, B. Have you noticed that people on the water aren't as friendly and polite as they used to be? I'll swear, you used to get a wave from every boat you met or passed, but lately there are many who just speed on past without so much as a "Go to Hell."
Do you think more liberals have taken up boating, or what?
Rubio has authored anti-1st
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:59pm.
Rubio has authored anti-1st Amendment legislation to establish free speech zone buffers. He also favors invading Libya for regime change.
Ryan voted for TARP, the auto bailouts, and taxes on AIG bonuses.
Clearly, no one is 100% doing all the things as they
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:32pm.
should be done. People make mistakes. Look at the trend of their actions, not one action. For example, EVERTHING Obama has done sucks. See the trend?
These aren't mistakes, and it
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:00pm.
These aren't mistakes, and it would be naive to think they were.
Waving "Hello there" back at you!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:19pm.
For government workers specifically, putting them on unemployment saves money vs. the private sector. We don't have the money so why not FIRE them all now? Then we can move on & the economy would recover much faster. They are absolutely not essential. We did not have them before and we survived without all these BS departments just making more and more rules. We can take care of ourselves. Provide roads and law enforcement and other essential services. GET OUT of our way!
I got a new boat instead of a new car after college. That was fun skiing et al. Could sleep out in the cabin & ski on glass in the morning & at dusk. What happened to those days? Now I think there are those "flying" carp in the IL river. That would hurt! People waved back then. I would not know about now! Sold boat not long after having kids. Just sat... poor thing. When driving: People wave to each other on our road, but I think that is not so common anymore?
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
A boat instead of a car!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:32pm.
Glad to see you got your priorities straight when you were in school. M-B!
Yeah, kids do slow the boat thing down a little, but the trick is to get them to love the boat early and then you are "doing it for the kids, honey."
Once you get old, you switch to the "I can't take it with me" line to get a REALLY big boat. I'll be glad when I reach the point that I can claim I need a crew (all female) to "help with the boat." I know a couple of guys in that category now, and I'll swear they never stop smiling.
Oh hell yeah
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:58pm.
Both my sister and I were taught how to operate my dad's 23' boat and were allowed to take it out by ourselves when we were about six (not far, mind you, within sight, but all by ourselves, were we HOT STUFF!).
Unfortunately, I don't do much boating up here any more.
Tell you what, Bubba. As long as you don't wear a speedo, I'll crew on your boat (my ex-FIL used to crack up at the old fat farts w/hairy backs on the Cigarettes...he'd say "look, isn't it nice of that old guy to take out all his granddaughters). I'll run the cockpit. Must have Fin-nors. (I saw the American Pickers grab 6 Penn International 80W's for $250 a piece the other night, I almost wanted to get in my car and go get them, sheesh they stole those things). I bought one about 25 years ago and it was over a grand, then.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
A 23 footer crewed by 6 year
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:36pm.
A 23 footer crewed by 6 year olds ... gad the horror.
Dan,
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:48pm.
I know six year olds right now who are safer in a 23 footer than many of the "grown-ups" I see at the helm.
Most of the six year olds don't drink yet!
The American Pickers show is
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:39pm.
The American Pickers show is staged and scripted as are most reality shows.
Am. Pickers on TV
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:20pm.
I saw the Penn real episode this week too. So they write all that stuff up right then and film it that day? How does that work? Or, it is planned days in advance? They don't seem to buy enough to make a living. Buy a few things and move on. Seems like you would need way more volume due to overhead. Guess they must be making money off the TV show? Or like that Cash & Carrie. 30% on a $6000 sale but they worked a week on it & have staff. We had a neighbor one time that was in Texas Walker Ranger (she was a regular in it & her husband who was a stunt man in it). That was cool. Very nice people!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I imagine some of it is
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:31am.
I imagine some of it is concocted before hand and some of those fabulous deals are indeed arranged. Most of it is likely just filmed and they pick some good footage out of zillions. The Pawn Shop is the same way. Most of these people are making money off of the show.
A speedo? A freaking speedo?!?!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:44pm.
Darlin', that is one thing that you will never catch me in!
I'll keep you on the top of the list when I decide that I can get away with the AGC thing.
Speaking of stealing, the pawn shops in KW are loaded with great stuff since so many guides are packing it in with the Hopey Changey thing working out so great for them.
Speedo? Never ... I promise. Shoot me if it ever happens!
Defense Cuts
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:25pm.
Entitlements account for about 2/3 of the government's budget; defense isn't really all that much. And cutting defense is akin to waving a white flag around. When we cut defense back in the late '60s and '70s, our enemies saw that chance to be aggressive because we displayed weakness. We cannot afford to make that same mistake again, with China and Russia both putting considerable resources and political efforts into dominating the world stage and challenging us. It has been very wisely and long noted, that the best means of promoting peace is to be constantly prepared for war. That military projects often funnel ideas into the consumer market is an added bonus.
We need to cut the social programs and cut the bureaucracy. Some programs, like NASA, should be defunded altogether. A great many agencies should be phased out (like the EPA). Still more should be combined and cut back; why do we have the FBI and the Federal Marshals? There should only be one agency for enforcing the laws. Let's cut what is neither necessary nor authorised by the Constitution.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
Cutting defense is not waving
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:30pm.
Cutting defense is not waving a white flag. We don't need the DHS, we don't need to be in Libya, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Africa...we need to defend our border, not other countries'.
The White Flag
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:05pm.
I'm not disputing that we need to mind our own business; I have long said that we should declare our neutrality and turn a bit more isolationist in some respects. But there is a difference between ceasing military operations such as Libya, or discontinuing more bureaucracy like the DHS, and simply cutting defense spending. We need to maintain our military prowess with development programs and maintenance. For example, BHO is allowing our nuclear missiles to become obsolete. The fuel inside the warheads will expire, and those weapons need to be updated and modernised. What good is our nuclear deterrent when it's obsolete? What good will it be against Chinese or Russian weapons (both are modernising their arsenals)? It is those programs that I am defending, not our wayward military ventures. Only by remaining the cutting edge of military prowess can we expect to have that Big Stick Teddy Roosevelt advised us to use, so we can speak softly.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
When I first Joined the Corps.....
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:23pm.
Jimmy Carter was President and the Military was a MESS!! we ahd tanks trucks guns and rifles that could not be repaired because there was NO MONEY! we would do excerises and not have blanks so we would have to yell BANG... (YEAH silly as that sounds its the truth) I DON'T want to go back to those bad ole days! lets pull out of Europe and the Middle East and let them fix their own damn problems!
Sometime I think we should
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:43pm.
Sometime I think we should pull completely out. But in the long run we might, probably a certainty, be worse off and the whole of Islam coming to kill us.
Oh, we're in agreement for
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:39pm.
Oh, we're in agreement for sure.
Failed policies
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:28pm.
Isolationism was last tried in the 1920s and 1930s. It failed, and failed miserably.
Unfortunately the Big Bad World is NOT going away and we need to remain engaged in it. Declaring neutrality has not worked; only backfired. By being proactive for a change, maybe we can prevent future Pearl Harbors and 11 Septembers, and maintain a world where people figure out that it is better to engage in trade than engage in killing each other.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Got it,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:09am.
Incestmo is Chuckie Lindberg, reincarnated. America First!!!! Follow the Paulturd forever!!!!
Well having been in all those places at one time...
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:17pm.
Or another.........I would have to say that Satchmo and I agree on this point! Many of these countries hate us and only wish us ill will. I say pull out and let them flounder in their own pile of fetid feces. (BTW Satchmo..... Libya IS in Africa....LOL)
Sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:24pm.
By defending the DMZ, among other places, we are defending your right to be a whiny ingrate on NB.
I'd rather take the fight to THEM, rather than sit around and wait like sheep waiting to be slaughtered.
You are no "Constitutionalist", sick freak. Precisely because nothing horrifies you like the idea that the Constitution MUST be defended.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Boehner's two phase plan
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:28pm.
Phase One - give up everything
Phase Two - tuck tail and hide while wondering how long before people notice there are never going to be cuts.
This is worse than his deal in December - at least the taxes haven't been raise yet.
I called my Congressman yesterday
Submitted by Conservator on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:33pm.
IMO, the Republicans/Tea Party must support Boehner's plan. Failure to do so will afford Obama, Reid and their fellow leftist Democrats off the hook who will use that opportunity to BLAME those radical extremists on the right. Conservatives have WON the debate and it saddens me that Congressional Republicans don't seem to understand the importance politically of their victory.
So go along to get along?
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:46pm.
So go along to get along?
But if they do that...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:00am.
Obama gets to blow 2 trillion more of our dollars. The best thing that could happen now would be the gooberment grinding to a halt!
No
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:34pm.
The GOP is revising the plan and more Republicans are getting behind it. They'll pass this plan through the House in the next day or so. Though if it were me, I'd wait until Friday to pass it. More on that below.
The Reid plan may not pass the Senate, but even if it squeaks by, it'll never pass the House.
Much is being made about Reid's plan including a bigger number in spending cuts (though the CBO lopped off a half-trillion from Dingy's stated "saving") but it's a complete sham. It includes cuts that they attribute to war funding -at a rate equal to that during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan, every year, for ten years. This assumes that the wars will continue, even in Iraq, at or above their current levels when Obama already has a plan in place, and has begun removing troops from both theaters. It's a lie. However, Boehner could one-up him, and show a notion of compromise by including in his plan, the exact same (Democrat) cuts. This would drive his number upward by $1.2T.
The real pressure is on Reid at this point. The House has passed two plans that raise the debt ceiling; the Ryan budget and CCB. If, by the end of the week, nothing has passed the Senate it'll fall squarely on Reid for not bringing Ryan's budget to the floor and tabling CCB. Then, if he passes on of those, it'll fall on Obama to either sign it, or veto it and risk whatever "catastrophe" befalls us.
On another note- more bad news from the Census Bureau regarding June durable goods orders and inventories; "unexpectedly" -according to Reuters- down again. Q2 GDP will be released Friday. Q1 growth was revised down to 1.9%, Q2 certainly won't exceed that. The only question is: will it be negative? If so, we're three months from an official double-dip. That can't be blamed on the GOP no matter how hard the media and the Dems try to spin it.
Agreed.
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:48pm.
Yes, we, the American people, are being "played".But it's been going on for a long time and won't be changed over night. I see the 2010 election as significant, but it only got us half-way there. That's the current "system". Wait 'till 2012 to take a giant step. In the meantime, Reid, Obama and the rest of the clowns will have fewer opportunities to yell "Tea Party" and blame "extremists".
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
And yet, those voted into
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:49pm.
And yet, those voted into office in that 2010 election voted to increase the debt ceiling and voted for the CC&B bill.
What, exactly, do you not understand?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:01pm.
Minority vs. Majority.
The Tea Party Conservatives are a minority of the majority in the House. They are a minority of a minority in the Senate.
So what, EXACTLY, did you expect them to do? Names and votes, please. Your overweening whining is beyond pathetic. Try offering up a solution for a change, Pervmo.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I understand standing for
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:38pm.
I understand standing for one's principles. It's a shame your Congressman voted to raise the debt ceiling. None of them should've voted for the CC&B farce.
Why don't you run for Congress?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:22pm.
Since you are so much haughtier than John F'ing Kerry?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
J?
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:28pm.
Did you see Kerry's swift-boat, child-porno buddy that intro'd him at the '04 DNCC had his Silver Star stripped recently? The Navy said that facts have come to light that had they been know at the time the medal was awarded, it would not have been.
Sorry for the distraction...
Links?
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:46pm.
Links?
Dan
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:56pm.
Here ya go.
The Missing Link
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:59pm.
Here you go.
Why only Congress?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:19pm.
Since Incestmo here is THE SUPREME EXPERT on EVERYTHING, he should be appointed PFL, and no one should EVER be allowed to question him or his perfect, infalliable wisdom.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Now your Congressman is
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:35pm.
Now your Congressman is backing Boehner's non-plan plan. Still no cuts on the size of government. Still no cuts on spending. But he sure is quick to vote for raising the debt ceiling. When is he going to start acting like a "Tea Party conservative"?
So, when do your campaign
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:45pm.
signs go up, Incestmo? What's your slogan, never mind, no one here even wants to go there, ok?
But, indeed, please do run, you're so much smarter than anyone else on the planet. I mean, you're the self-proclaimed expert on all things, I'm sure your opponent would only get two votes, his/hers and his/her mother's. Even his/her spouse would vote for you..
Man you're dense
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:51pm.
What makes you think that passing a budget that cut spending to year 2000 levels, raised the retirement age to 75, cut off Medicare reimbursements at $8000 annually, and halved the defense budget, would go anywhere?
You can chose to live with Mr. Roarke and Tattoo, but the House of Representatives has to live in the real world.
What on earth are you talking
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:20pm.
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't say anything about the year 2000, the retirement age, or Medicare reimbursements.
I take it back, dense isn't strong enough
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:37pm.
All day you've been railing about no cuts to defense, no entitlement reform, no cuts in spending. I provided a hypothetical that addresses your concerns; apparently it was over you head. I'll dumb it down.
If the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Boehner, were to put forth and pass a bill that cut spending to a level that was about the same as it was in the year 2000, FOR EXAMPLE, and included entitlement reforms SUCH AS raising the retirement age and placing a cap on Medicare spending, as well as reduced the defense budget BY SAY half -which would seemingly meet your loosely specified criteria- what do you think would become of it?
Oh, you were creating a straw
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:53pm.
Oh, you were creating a straw man. I see. I don't care about your "hypothetical" because none of those are my goals. I'm not under any illusion that meaningful legislation is going to be passed, and I'm not under any illusion that Republicans will offer any meaningful legislation. Ever. For the short term, I want gridlock, default, and a government shutdown.
No, not a straw man
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:00pm.
A straw man would be misrepresenting your argument by framing it in another way. I didn't do that. I put forth a hypothetical that fairly represented what you claimed you wanted. Now you're not interested in your own positions.
Republicans, regardless of what they pass, probably can't get anything through the Senate. The whole of the media -save for Fox and a parts of the WSJ- are hammering Republicans for not coming up with a plan to save the US from default. And yet you seem to want to just bash Boehner and Republicans for not being fiscally conservative enough. That's a ludicrous position because as I've shown, there is no way a conservative bill is going to be signed into law.
Yes, that was a straw man.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:53am.
Yes, that was a straw man. You started with, "What makes you think...," when I have never voiced any of the elements in your hypothetical nor am I in favor of them. It didn't represent a single thing I've said. Straw man.
What you said was
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:21am.
In context, you were calling for cuts in spending for entitlements and defense as the only way to solve the problem and the onus was on Republicans to do that; less they be equal to the big-spending Democrats. That was your argument, no? I provided an example that would meet your conditions and asked you what would be the result in the Senate if such a bill were passed by Republicans in the House; a bill that you would seemingly endorse in principle. (Since you didn't specify how much should be cut from entitlements or defense, I inserted hypothetical figures.)
That's not a straw man, that's an extension of your argument. You could argue in return that you don't endorse the figures, but they weren't the crux of the hypothetical; my example simply illustrated your plan in a way you failed to do. The argument I was making is that any plan that does what you would seemingly endorse would not pass the Senate and certainly wouldn't be signed by the President. So it's disingenuous to call Republicans out for not being conservative enough simply for not producing a plan that had no chance of moving forward.
Actually, I'm for the
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:42am.
Actually, I'm for the elimination of entitlements as well as numerous government policies and agencies. We have a spending problem, and I was simply pointing out that in none of the proposals and none of the plans and none of the bills passed have there been any cuts in entitlements and defense. None. Zip. Nada. It's pretty difficult to get a rein on spending and not address the two areas that account for more than 75% of government spending.
You did create a straw man, whether you realize it or not. And no, you did not provide an example that would meet my conditions. And it is not disingenuous to point out that Republicans are not holding to the promises that they made when campaigning. It is not disingenuous to point out that the Republicans are not making cuts, but they are making "cuts" on proposed spending levels. They are still endorsing raising spending. This is a fact.
And what I was pointing out, Satchmo,
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:20pm.
was that your "plan", if there was one, would not pass the Senate or the White House. In fact, it probably wouldn't garner more than 1 or 2% in public support. So for Republicans to put forward such a plan would be foolish. As I said above, you can fairly argue that I misrepresented your specifics, but only because you did not provide them. It is not a straw man when what I inserted is more conservative than what you'd actually propose. (Not politically conservative, punctilious conservative.) Your position is actually much easier defeated than the example I gave. When you get a chance, look up "straw man".
There is also a difference between stating a preferred position during a campaign and being able to effect that change once in office. You're lambasting Republicans for not being able to cut actual spending levels and proposing plans that don't reform entitlement programs (even though the Ryan Budget did address entitlement programs, as well as defense spending.) And yet, abortion is still legal, the IRS is still hard at work, gold is not the monetary standard, the death penalty still exists, use and sale of CDS's are still illegal, you can't pray in schools, the Department of Education is still working hard to support teachers unions, Obama is issuing new CAFE standards tomorrow, we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, private, pro-bono medical care hasn't replaced Medicaid, Social Security hasn't been privatized, the 14th amendment still exists and is even being debated today, and the Death Tax is skyrocketing, rather than being eliminated.
Sometimes what you personally believe isn't always realistic to accomplish. Standing on a principled fantasy isn't exemplary of sanity.
It was a straw man, and you
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 2:52pm.
It was a straw man, and you pretty much just admitted it: "you can fairly argue that I misrepresented your specifics, but only because you did not provide them."
If that's the best you can do
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:58pm.
then I guess we'll have to settle with that. As someone recently said, "you're entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts." I gave you a fair shot.
Right, making something up
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:17pm.
Right, making something up out of thin air and saying it's my plan is a "fair shot."
More disrespect from the troll that demands respect.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:26pm.
You demand respect, ok trollie?
You lie and you are a liar and you tell lies. I. DEMAND. RESPECT. BECAUSE. I. HAVE. A RIGHT. TO. TROLL.
Another name added to the list.
to bkeyser - Right, making something up out of thin air...
I can't explain it but... I
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:05pm.
I can't explain it but... I am drawn towards your words like a moth to a flame. The words "gridlock", "default", and gooberment shutdown appeal to me on some ethereal plane. Not quite the Ron Paul for president plane, but anything short of that sounds good.
Boehner is not a "Tea Party Conservative"
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:12pm.
When did he say he was? There is a split here amonst the Republicans that helped get us into this mess and the new elected freshman who will get us out of this mess. We just need ONE MORE ELECTION CYCLE to do that!
And by the way satch, Ron Paul is not the guy. He has one or more screws loose!
Blonde's Congressman is West,
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:13pm.
Blonde's Congressman is West, not Boehner.
I didn't mention West
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:21pm.
I mentioned Boehner. What am I missing other than your ability to be dumb? Ohh wait! I get that too!
Do yourself a favor, and go
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:55pm.
Do yourself a favor, and go back and read the exchange again before you embarrass yourself any further.
Ha ha! Anytime I embarrass
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:20pm.
Ha ha! Anytime I embarrass myself in your eyes is a victory for me. Why? Because you are dumber than a bag-o-hammers. How do I know this? Well, Ron Paul (God love him) is a kook and votes with Dennis Kooksenich! Deny this at your own peril!
Where has West said he will support
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:01pm.
The latest Boehner bill? I am not a fan of the bill myself. And unfortunately if West does support it, all we can hope is Obama does actually veto it.
This bill kicks the can. The dimwits havent budged, why do the Repubs feel like they must. To Boehner's credit, he has passed the Balance Budget Amendment, and the Ryan bill. We should insist that Read take a proper vote, and lean on Blue dogs bigtime. Time to take OFF the gloves. If not now when?
West is supporting it
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:09pm.
“I’m a conservative, you guys say I’m a pretty hard-line conservative,” Rep. Allen West, a tea party favorite among the freshman class, told reporters. “I’m going to support this.” West said he “would almost put my retirement check” on the bill passing Thursday night, adding that, “when you give people the opportunity to sit back and evaluate things and look at their integrity of heart, they come back and make a better decision.”
This is disheartening
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:16pm.
That means the Repubs are betting on better opportunities later. If we end up with a Romney, Pawlenty, or a Gingrich, or a few others. We are screwed, because these folks haven't the intestinal fortitude to make it happen.
I even heard an Repub, suggest "political expediency" witch tells me we got work to do!
Boudin and Bk are right*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:13pm.
It will not matter if the R's and D's even agree and pass any bill.. Obama has already said that he will VETO any bill that has no tax increases and does not raise the debt ceiling. Thats a clue folks. That means with or without congress, he is going to continue spending the US into third world status. That has been his plan all along proven by his own words and actions.
He has said many things and
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:35am.
He has said many things and only a miniscule fraction have been true. The Boner bill wont get through the Senate. This begs the question on why the GOP are being painted as the party of no.
Not so, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:56am.
He has said he will veto short term bills which will just be a temporary respite before the whole godawful mess starts up again in a few months. He has not said he will veto any bill which doesn't contain tax increases [the Reid plan, for example has none].
Jer
Actually I'm very pleased with where this has landed
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:21pm.
I think the Tea Party freshmen played this one perfectly. I am for a short term deal right now. It's the only way to make Obama own this deficit of his.
The freshmen backed away from Boehner's plan earlier this week. That in and of itself showed Obama and the rest of the democrats that once the House has voted up an offer and puts it on the table, there is NO FURTHER ROOM for negotiation. The Tea Party freshmen did what we asked of them.
Allen West would tell you (you who wants to "win" by nuking the entire country), that this is a "shaping" operation, wherein the battlefield (2012) is prepared, whilst still making an incremental gain. Obama gets no net gain in the debt ceiling, he gets no long term political cover, and he gets his head handed to him on a platter for acting like a petulant four year old. Same thing for the democrats in the Senate. The House is going to pass this, WITH the help of the Tea Party freshmen, as they should after forcing Boehner to up the ante a little bit without bowing to the tax demands.
Coming into the 2012 election, all the democrats have is being the party of NO! The individual democrats in the Senate, particularly the ones who are borderline re-electable, may very well break from the party line. Either way, passing the Speaker's bill in the House puts the entire onus on Obama and the democrats in the Senate. The real war starts in 2012. Once we have a majority in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, the REAL WORK can commence to begin.
This is called strategic thinking. You'd nuke the whole thing now. Brilliant, Sparky.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
thinking strategically there B
Submitted by botg on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:32pm.
why would anyone not force Obama to revisit his mess next May-June? 9 month extension and bring his smoke-and-mirrors to light again
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Hola Botg
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:43pm.
This allows us to keep a continuous spotlight on Obama's smoking mirrors (h/t Gators).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
comment ca-va mon cher
Submitted by botg on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:51pm.
so many peole won't settle for anything but a grand-slam but more points are made paying Billy-ball
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
ca va bien botg*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:57pm.
Est toi?
I would settle for any kind of clue bat and ball. As Boudin posted, I think there are D;s that are willing to compromise since they recognize the danger we are in NOW. I think that is why the cut/cap/balance was not even voted on in the Senate. Our Senator Landrieu(D) has been very unusually quiet for almost a year now. It is difficult to play party politics when you know the plan is to destroy the country. That is why we have seen no bills, no budget, no votes on the budget. That silence in a D majority in the senate is a glimmer of hope for me.
bien
Submitted by botg on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:06pm.
but if we only get a bandaid when chemo is needed we end up worse off. We really can't afford another spend-happy group of republicans like W's whitehouse.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
agree botg*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:20pm.
We need a bigger medicine chest. I think we elected some trouble makers in 2010. We need to throw some bums out, bench the idiots, and put in a few more of those trouble makers. We need to do that at home , not just Fla , in our own districts, in each our own states. Send a loud message to DC beltway snobs. Then I will feel more secure knowing Obama will have an even tougher time doing anything even if he does win.
And if he loses, I hope the TSA and the IRS check his luggage (off shore accts) before he exits the WH....
Au revoir les serpents...;-)
nite cajun
Submitted by botg on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:28pm.
early comes early
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Yep Caj
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:17pm.
That's why Reid tabled CCB; so vulnerable Dems -like the bought and paid for Ms. Mary- wouldn't have to vote on it.
LOL Good one Bk*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:23pm.
She quit sending me emails. I wonder why...;-)
She is caught between a rock and a $. She is a Dem through and through BUT she is heavily supported by the oil and gas industry. Awww, pauvre bete
J
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:31pm.
I read an interesting opinion somewhere this evening that did make a good bit of sense:
This new Boehner bill cuts $917B over 10 year. Paltry, no doubt. But the debt-limit will only be raised by $900B which takes us into like May, or somewhere around there. That means we get to have this argument again as primary season is waning. The GOP candidates will have to weigh in, but they'll naturally weigh in on the side of greater cuts and stronger enforcement. Obama will have to fight it tooth and nail to keep his base energized. He'll want independents, but he won't win if his base stays home. Politically disastrous proposition for Barry.
This bill also only cuts spending next year by $22B. Miniscule. But, it sets the baseline for future negotiations. When Barry needs the debt limit raised again, the baseline will be no lower than $22B in cuts next year and $1T over the next 10 years.
We also have the expiration of the CR on Sept 30. Another budget fight is coming and the House has passed a budget, then Senate hasn't written one. If we have to operate on another CR, Repubs can shake their head and reluctantly agree to do it, provided there are heavy cuts for 2012. This would raise the $22B threshold to whatever level they can get. The 2012 budget will be reduced even further.
That brings us back to next May. The new baseline threshold is set by the CR in September and a new debt-level increase will have to have cuts that surpass that level. Again, the 2012 budget get cut and more cuts are in place for the outlying 9 years. Barry's base is livid, cuts are made, and unemployment is still at 9%. No way Barry wins in 2012.
Exactly
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:42pm.
We need to think strategically at this point.
The problem with the original Boehner proposal was that it used the "old" baseline, prior to their last "budget cut deal".
We're not going to gain any serious cuts until we lose Reid & the democrats in the Senate. Plus, if by some spectacular confluence of events they can actually get a bill together for Obama, that puts this hot potato square in his lap. Either he follows through on his little veto threat, thereby OWNING his doom & gloom scenario as the one and only reason for it, or he backs down. Either way the House Republicans, and the Tea Party freshman, win.
The longer we can keep the focus on Barry's idiotic spending and democrat irresponsibility in general, the easier it will be to sweep them out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with this deal, but it's the most we are ever going to get in July 2011.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Strategy?
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:58pm.
We have all we need now, the public! The folks get it, why would we count birds in the tree? So who is going to force serious and meaningful legislation later? This same group who is claiming such, that's who.
I cant bite. We all assume we are going to elect benevolent persons "next time". We the folks have the political elitist on the run, how about we keep them there for awhile, how about we force them to think about US for a change!
J
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:58pm.
That's what I've been arguing all day today.
I just saw Rand Paul tell Greta that he won't vote for the Boehner bill because it doesn't put us on a path to a balanced budget. As if there will never be another chance write another budget. He might have some strong conservative principles, but he's no tactician. Strategy is what wins wars; I was trying to infer that earlier with my mention of the British warfighting methods during the Revolutionary War. Sometimes you need to out think your opponent; brute strength doesn't always win out.
As if there will never be another chance write another budget
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:16pm.
30 months, 30. But they will get it done another time? You believe this? Because I am losing faith bigtime. If we cant get it done now, then when?
When we had the Presidency and both Houses, we didnt get this done. Right now, to-freaken-day, we are 2 procedural votes away from a Balance budget Amendment. We have never been this close. Why do any of you think, it will be such a cake walk next time? BTW this does jack for the debt, it will not help our Rating, so the the interest is going up, and the borrowing is not lessened.
Kicking the can, again. There is no political expediency here.
January 2013
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:21pm.
is only 16 months away.
The Boehner Bill also includes a separate vote on a BBA. There is bi-partisan support for that and overwhelming public support for it. Dems voting on the party line will have to answer for it in 2012.
As for this bill: the House can't make the Senate do anything. They can just keep passing bills and let the Senate and Obama take the heat for not passing anything.
To far away
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:41am.
I remember that Bush had both houses, and let the dimwits filibuster appointments for cripes sake. I remember when the Repubs ruled they waved in the political winds. I say force the vote on the BBA, and let the dimwits carry that albatross around for awhile. I dont trust the Repubs to do the right thing once revenue picks up. That is why now is the time!
No bill is better then giving Obama another blank check.
Boudin
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:22am.
The new Boehner bill, according to Paul Ryan on Greta's show last night, requires a separate, stand-alone vote on the BBA. The GOP is united on this issue and believes it is the only way to reign in future spending.
A BBA does not rein in future
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:04pm.
A BBA does not rein in future spending. It is not panacea.
Yes, I'm sure you're right
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:06pm.
Capping spending to receipt levels certainly qualifies as increasing spending.
Satchmo, you've got a little ron paul on your nose there; might wanna wipe that off.
There hasn't been a BBA plan
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:25pm.
There hasn't been a BBA plan that does that. Certainly not the one passed last week. Look, would you rather have a $2 trillion unbalanced budget or a $4 trillion balanced budget? There has been no plan to cap spending that doesn't allow Congress to change it on whim. They are all empty promises because people like you will swallow it up.
Really?
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:29pm.
That's not how his reads.
Context. We aren't talking
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:34pm.
Context. We aren't talking about joint resolutions from January, we're discussing the current theater. Regardless, you sure do like to ignore the word unless and everything that follows it. As I said, "There has been no plan to cap spending that doesn't allow Congress to change it on whim."
There hasn't been a BBA plan
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:24pm.
There hasn't been a BBA plan that does that. Certainly not the one passed last week. Look, would you rather have a $2 trillion unbalanced budget or a $4 trillion balanced budget? There has been no plan to cap spending that doesn't allow Congress to change it on whim. They are all empty promises because people like you will swallow it up.
While I appreciated that
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:56pm.
I dont want a vote, I want a victory. Right now we have some real screws to turn. Why give them anything? During the budget debate they said, "wait till the CR debate" then they said "wait till the Debt Cap debate" now they say "wait till this expires"? All I want to know, is what are they going to do different? It will be this very same group up there in DC, so what is going to change?
I agree about Satch, he has missed the boat here. The BBA will cap spending at a percentage of GDP, well below the current 22% or so. That is a big jump start in the right direction.
~It only caps it if they keep their word
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:03pm.
and if they were keeping their word (the oath of office), the BBA would be unnecessary. What this bill does is legalize their pork spending.
Well true, but
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:10pm.
It is still the best thing that has been through the congress in a long long time. In my humble opinion.
What this bill does is legalize their pork spending.
Other then metaphorically, how so?
~That's what they want you to think
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:39am.
Walking a wolf into the flock doesn't work, they spook. Walking a wolf in sheep's clothing into the flock is a little more effective. If government spending is tied explicitly to the GDP, we're punching their meal ticket.
We're giving them explicit permission to spend, based on a number that we cannot measure ourselves.
They can tell us whatever the hell they want and claim they're sticking to this but we're setting thieves to police themselves.
The way the Constitution is set up, Congress's powers are specifically enumerated and whatever goes beyond that is, quite frankly, illegal. And they know it and they can't claim that pork is allowed by the Constitution. What the BBA does is make what Congress spends money on completely irrelevant as long as they don't go above a certain threshold which we, individually, are incapable of measuring.
Uhg,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:11am.
Now I am not feeling well. Your practical thinking is going to ruin my day. But, historically, our economy has suffered significantly when the Gov cut of GDP has exceeded 19% or so.
Like I said, right now there is no limit. Although I appreciate what your saying, until a Fair Tax is installed, this is the best, and most possible rout to take.
Or am I missing something? Is there a better idea currently under debate that I missed.
The best thing is gridlock,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:23am.
The best thing is gridlock, default, and a government shutdown. Every time the government tries to gin up hysteria what happens? Nothing, except for their (usually) gaining more power/control and lining pockets. Think of the bird flu and swine flu scares, for example. Even post-9/11 "security" arguments: TSA and DHS. There is never any reason to trust government or to trust its stewards. They did it with the phony economic crisis in '08, which opened the door for stimulus, the bailouts, QE1&2, etc. They're doing it now. Nothing is going to happen when we default, certainly not the Armageddon picture that they're painting. Nothing, that is, that will be disastrous.
~There's no limit on % of GDP
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:54am.
But there IS a limit on what they're allowed by the Constitution to spend on. The best route to take is to stick to the Constitution as written. If we can't make them do that, how will we make them adhere to the BBA?
I still don't see it Bru
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:33pm.
H.J. Res. 1 would propose an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit total outlays of the United States from exceeding total receipts in a fiscal year; such a requirement could be overridden by a three-fifths vote in each House. The amendment also would require that:
Such provisions could be waived for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect or if a majority of each House determines that the United States is engaged in a military conflict that poses an imminent and serious military threat to national security.
Because you keep stopping at
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:36pm.
Because you keep stopping at the word "unless".
When was the last time
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:48pm.
a 2/3 vote happened?
What difference does it make
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:10pm.
What difference does it make when it happened last? You are ignoring the language of the bill. Why on earth would you have faith in government or politicians?
So, you don't like the BBA
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:15pm.
because even though it specifically states that the only way to alter the formula is through a 2/3 vote, and Congress is likely to just ignore that language?
Just out of curiosity- which successful society operates now or ever without some form of government? There has to be one or more out there that you can point to as a shining example of what we should aspire to be?
No, I don't like it because
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:53am.
No, I don't like it because it includes language allowing it to be violated. I didn't say Congress was ignoring the language, I was saying you were.
~See above
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:43am.
All the stuff you like about it is the sugary coating meant to make the real intention of the bill go down sweeter. And all the stuff you like will dissolve just like sugar once it's purpose is accomplished.
It galls me to have Pervmo prissing around agreeing with me, but there it is. *sigh*
It's encouraging that you see
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:20am.
It's encouraging that you see the light on this one. Now if you would just apply your current healthy - and accurate - skepticism to other governmental arenas.
~Oh, I'm sorry. Did I puke on your shoes?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:49am.
In my defense, giant red clown shoes are difficult to avoid.
Just because I think drugs, incest, and prostitution should be illegal doesn't mean I trust the government; it means I'm not a drug-addled sexual pervert seeking permission and acceptance from society as a whole.
I was thinking more along the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 10:22am.
I was thinking more along the lines of foreign policy.
~What do you assume my positions are?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 10:47am.
And go to the bottom of the thread with your answer where I'll have more room to ream you a new one.
Warning Incestmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:08pm.
There is a reason her post name is Wrathful Brunette.
BRB: excuse me, gotta go make some popcorn
Bru
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 10:18am.
Below is the entire text of H.J. Res 1.
‘‘ARTICLE—
11 ‘‘SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall
12 not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three
13 fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall
14 provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts
15 by a rollcall vote.
16 ‘‘SECTION 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall
17 not exceed one-fifth of economic output of the United
18 States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall
19 provide for a specific increase of outlays above this
20 amount.
21 ‘‘SECTION 3. The limit on the debt of the United
22 States held by the public shall not be increased unless
23 three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall pro
24 vide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
------page break------
‘‘SECTION 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President
2 shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the
3 United States Government for that fiscal year in which
4 total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
5 ‘‘SECTION 5. A bill to increase revenue shall not be
6 come law unless three-fifths of the whole number of each
7 House shall provide by law for such an increase by a roll
8 call vote.
9 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress may waive the provisions
10 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration
11 of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be
12 waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is
13 engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and
14 serious military threat to national security and is so de
15 clared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the
16 whole number of each House, which becomes law.
17 ‘‘SECTION 7. The Congress shall enforce and imple
18 ment this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely
19 on estimates of outlays and receipts.
20 ‘‘SECTION 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts
21 of the United States Government except those derived
22 from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of
23 the United States Government except for those for repay
24 ment of debt principal.
------page break------
‘‘SECTION 9. This article shall take effect beginning
2 with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its
3 ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after Decem
4 ber 31, 2016.".
Please, educate me. Where is the authorization for spending that exceeds the prescriptive amount? Presumably the waiver is for war funding; since we don't budget funds for this eventuality during peacetime, there would have to be a provision that allowed the US to ramp up spending in the event of a war or imminent threat. Satchmo would surely point to this as the out, but the language states that either decclaration of war must be in place -which hasn't been the case since WWII- or that a majority of both Houses put into Law a joint resolution acknowledging an imminent threat. If nothing else, this would preclude spending for things like Libya.
As for the 2/3- there would have to be some reasonable way to address national emergencies. The fiscal year ends Sept 30th. What if we're hit with a several hurricanes before the end of the fiscal year? Currently, the President would declare a state of emergency and authorize special funding to deal with the aftermath. I'd bet that money for that is -if appropriated at all in the budget- used up quickly. More than one hurricane would surely result in deficit spending, wouldn't it? With the BBA, it would seem that there is still a way to fund these emergencies and securing 2/3 of both houses wouldn't be too difficult. But a new extension of unemployment benefits or a shiny new training program to address today's abysmal GDP numbers would never draw that muc unity, so the money wouldn't be spent.
Pork? This Amendment requires that outlays not excede receipts or 20% of GDP. I'm sure there will be times when the GDP will be incorrectly estimated, but in the grand scheme of things, compared to now, even running a defict of a few hundred billion -which would be a lot off of a poor estimate- is a damned sight better than the 1.3T we're looking at now.
The real intention is?
~Bk
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 10:22am.
This is too skinny; would you like to put it in the body of a forum in OT discussions and we can go over it?
Bru
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 11:02am.
I'll be in and out today, but here's the forum.
I'm open-minded :-)
~Awesome!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 11:14am.
I'll be in and out, too. I'm about to start lunch, but I'll be by during the boys' naptime to start.
I hear you, BK
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:29pm.
And Incestmo, like the good little Paulbot he is, is going for the brute force approach, for which we do not yet have a sufficient supply of ammo. All that approach is good for is shooting off one's own foot.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You, and others, are making
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:47am.
You, and others, are making the mistake in believing that your goals and interests are shared by the Republicans. They aren't. Then again, they are interested in maintaining the status quo and you are, too.
Update for the retard paulbot tardpaul paultard skeeve satchmo
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:54am.
Old trolltard posts here.
Republicans SUCK the SUCKSUCK in the SUCKSUCK and are aliens that have nothing to do with you because you SUCK more. So suck it because I. HAVE. THE. RIGHT. TO. TROLL. SUCKERS.
Yippee Yay. Best troll ever!
Obama doesn't care*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:47pm.
He has already said more than once, that the Constitution is a document of "negative" liberties. That means NO to a free wheeling Congress. That means NO to a tyrannical President. That means NO to re-defining what are our liberties. The Constitution is there FOR the people. It is there TO PROTECT our liberties. That is why Obama is angry. Some members of Congress are trying to get him to live within the boundaries established by the Constitution. There are some congresscritters that have openly asked the President to IGNORE the Constitution. That battle is ongoing until Nov 2012, not Sept 2011, not May 2012.
Even while Congress is arguing over cuts and taxes, Obama and his regulatory Czars are adding ridiculous measures to every agency, raising taxes, costly policies, economy killing rules, stifling energy production, higher fees, and penalties. All behind the curtain, all without congressional approval, all with media complicity by ignoring these actions. All these regulations designed to continue the economic downfall. Even if Congress approves a tax increase, there won't be anyone left with enough money to PAY their taxes. All of this he has planned all along. This "battle" between R's and D's is a distraction he is extending through in fighting and delays, fear mongering, and faux temper tantrums. All the while, he is campaigning for more money.
This is all true Caj
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:54pm.
but central to his plan, and absolutely necessary for him to carry it out to completion, is re-election. This policy of his however, is detracting exponentially from that possibility. The beauty behind the GOP strategy to this point -even with all its faults- is that it will not hand him an improving economy the same way Gingrich's House did for Clinton. Let Obama continue to own it right into November. We won't be able to change it before then anyway.
I would rather sit on the
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:35pm.
Balanced Amendment, and Ryan Bills, if it is dead on arrival. First we look like we are getting flustered, Second, it is basically pointless? We would be better off letting the cap expire, that would actually have more restraint on the dimwits then any of this.
Why are we even trying at this point? The dimwits got nothing.
As much as I hate disagreeing with you, I do.
I think our efforts are better spent fighting for a a vote on the prior bills, and twisting arms. I think we can turn Landriou here. Maybe we can find a few more.
LOL. Of course you are. You
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:15am.
LOL. Of course you are. You will make any excuse for the man no matter how many bad decisions he makes.
The pot calling the kettle black
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:38pm.
Much as you constantly make excuses for your own hero, sick freak?
Pot, meet kettle.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Anyone else notice yesterday?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:48pm.
Did anyone catch Rush's show yesterday? I read the transcripts since I don't listen to it at work(it's actually a little distracting, would love to focus on it, but must focus on work), and yesterday he had Boehner on the phone with him. There was a moment where Boehner was talking with him about his proposal and Rush had paused in such a way that Boehner said Rush's name to see if he was still there.
I didn't listen to the clip, but I got the impression that Rush wasn't too thrilled about the proposal, disappointed might be an understatement and then last night where Dave and others posted some links that indicated that Boehner might be going limp in his spine after all, I'm getting a similar feeling as well.
Here's the page with the transcript: Rush speaks with Boehner
Anyone else get that impression? At the end of it, it was like someone took the wind out of Rush's sails. And it's easy to see why.
-Jon
I heard it. It's painful to
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:51pm.
I heard it. It's painful to listen to Boehner speak, because he's in salesman/politician mode and can't be genuine. No, Rush isn't impressed.
The pause
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:17pm.
I "heard" the pause too and knew that Limbaugh isn't happy with Boehner's plan. So what. I like Rush, but he's wrong more times than he says he is .For example, he supported NAFTA. He's not omnipotent, by far. People should start thinking for themselves.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
An anti-free trade "conservative"?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:21pm.
What's wrong with NAFTA? Thanks to it, I have much greater job opportunities due to massively expanding operations in Mexico which were not possible before 1994.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Primary, Primary, Primary
Submitted by expatriot on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:22pm.
All of them need to be primaried. To raise the debt ceiling to get cuts is ridiculous. What is the sense of doing that? Don't raise the debt ceiling and pound Bambi incessantly over the fact that he has no plan and is deliberately running this country into the abyss. With the retardigans agreeing to raise the debt ceiling and "compromise" with this administration they deserve to be tried for their actions.
NO, NO, NO!
The plain fact of the
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:25pm.
The plain fact of the matter.
Conservatives will not get real budgetary reform while Obama and Reid control both the White House and Senate respectively. Let’s take what we can get short of allowing the Dems to delay the solutions until after the next election.
Here’s a link to Michael Barone’s latest article, (I’m sure you will find it makes sense):
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2011/07/25/to_get_a_mandate...
As far as “dumping” on Boehner and the Republican House… What more do you want??? They get-it already! They have done most everything we asked them to do in the 2010 election… but they are only ½ of the legislature and cannot force the Democratic Senate to cooperate.
And yes, my patience is wearing just as thin as most of yours… but we are still 19 months away from a real solution… so stand tough, don’t give up, and realize the real goal and mission is to get rid of Obama and a Democratic control of the Senate!
Just my 2 cents.
- Grump :o)
Really? They get it? Then why
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:42pm.
Really? They get it? Then why were there no cuts to entitlements or military spending in the bill they passed last week? Why did they vote to raise the debt ceiling? Where are the bills, even if they're destined for failure, to eliminate government programs and agencies? Where is the cutting? Where is the reduced spending? What have they done?
You Cut (or whatever it was)
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:34pm.
What happened to the You Cut program the Republicans had going on, where people got to vote on the website every week, and a proposal to cut or make the budgetary reduction was proposed the next week? I thought that was a brilliant move by the GOP to show some sincerity in reducing the government. I voted on things quite a few times (like selling off Federal lands - the government owns some 30% of our land). They should keep that up, so people can not only see the GOP's desire to actually cut the government back, but also see where our money is being frittered away.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
I believe I'll take some of the Vet's good advice.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:54pm.
"Do not feed the troll."
Reality Check....
Submitted by jdripper on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:31pm.
If John Boehner's plan is voted down then every Republican voting against it is in reality voting for Barack Obama. This is the question. Do you want BO re-elected? If so oppose Boehner's plan.
This is my pledge to every one of the crackpots. If you primary a Republican and defeat them over this then I guarantee that your candidate will never win. We will beat on your candidates so bad that the whippings and butt kicking you took in Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada will look like an afternoon tea.
You guys showed that you have the capacity to defeat people but you have yet to prove that you can elect anyone.
Jack
Harry Reid's plan named...
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:32pm.
Harry Reid's plan named... and it doesn't sound good...
it's The "Reid My Lips -- Lots of New Taxes" Plan
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Ain't it great that the
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:47pm.
Ain't it great that the Democrats are trying to invoke the constitution although they are wrong. The 14th Amendment was ratified after the War of Northern Aggression. It states:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited payment of any debt owed to the defunct Confederate States of America and also banned any payment to former slaveholders as compensation for the loss of their human property.
I don't see how the hell they are getting the right for 0bama to raise the public debt. Article Section 8 is very plain: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Re-write it is more like it
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:29pm.
It's more of that re-interpretation or re-writing that they are so fond of doing for a living(NOT!) document.
I was saying the same thing you were, ain't NOTHING in there that says a potus, bogus or otherwise, can take such an action. The only way a president can do it is if he is declaring himself a dictator and doesn't consider the Constitution something to be followed....oh wait...we have that already!(not the declaration, but his actions declare it)
-Jon
Oh but didn't he?
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:43pm.
When BHO declared the Constitution full of 'negative rights,' did he not declare his contempt for that great document? I think he did. For a Constitutional lawyer, he really isn't too impressive, except on his typical Progressive ability to interpret its somehow hidden meanings for the particular occasion such that it suits his designs. I, for one, see nothing unclear or really open to arbitrary interpretation in the Constitution.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
Goldwater and McGovern
Submitted by iveseenitall on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:50pm.
No need to look any further than Goldwater, and for that matter, McGovern to see what will happen if someone takes too hard an approach on any political issue. Like it or not, reality is reality.
"Winning isn't the most important thing...it's the ONLY thing"---Vince Lombardi
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
Debt and Taxes
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:09pm.
The idea that we raise the debt ceiling isn't a bad one - it's insane. Now is our opportunity to put a halt on the reckless spending, and force Congress to make real (not token) budget cuts. If we raise the debt ceiling, they only enable themselves to keep spending without accountability. This is our chance to institute real reforms to downsize the government.
Raising taxes isn't an acceptable answer either. Governments cannot produce wealth, they can only consume it. If we raise taxes now, it will further hinder the economy by consuming wealth that could be used for growth. It has been proven, repeatedly, that governments get more in tax revenues when taxes are lower; Reagan's own policies verified this and created the productive, prosperous atmosphere of the '90's (which Progressives continually and erroneously credit to Clinton).
Republicans should stand firm and uncompromising in a refusal to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes, as well as demanding a BBA that includes anti-pork language to the effect that every piece of legislation deals with one, and only one, subject. Missouri has had great success with such anti-pork measures.
The only way to play into Obama's hands is to act childishly, and move from compromise to compromise. Stand together, with a single goal. There is nothing for which we should be ashamed in refusing to compromise on our future and our security. There is too much compromise with Democrats and Progressives, and it has no benefit for us.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
There's no going back now
Submitted by Molecule on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:16pm.
This country is toast. It only took Obama 2 years to destroy it like he set out to do. As Rush has been pointing out, the new "baseline" is now even more inflated because of the last 2 years. And no one is going to do anything about it. The ONLY hope we have, as Rush says, is to hopefully get MORE of the RIGHT people into office. I don't know if that's even possible, though, given the media bias in this country. Sorry, it was a nice 235 year run, but it's over.
Over react?
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:31pm.
You still have a house and a job right? I am so sick of people saying this is the end of the world when we all know it doesn' end till 2012.
Yes, but barely....
Submitted by Molecule on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:07pm.
I had to sell my last house at a loss because of layoffs, and I barely have a job now. Went without one for 9 months in 2009 and 5 months in 2010-11. I realized the economy has cycles and it happens. So I'm not basing my cynical attitude on my recent experience. (I just wanted to point out that your assumption was almost not accurate.)
But... how many do NOT have a house nor a job right now? Honestly, you don't think that maybe we've reached the tipping point where too many are dependent on the government, either through welfare, etc. OR employed by them? Look how the public employees in Wisconsin acted recently. My gosh, pay a dime for THEIR own healthcare? Outrageous!!!
I really do believe the days of this being a FREE, capitalistic country are over. ie: the country that I grew up in and knew and loved. I don't even recognize this country anymore, regarding SO many things that I can't even begin to go into now, from the food police to the flag being banned in places.
Ok, so we recovered from Carter with Reagan, but we have many more people voting themselves "largesse" now, and I wonder if the scales have tipped. And with it being standard operating procedure in Washington to call a decrease in planned future spending a "cut" , and one party being accused of wanting to kill everyone just because they say we shouldn't spend money we dont' have... I don't know. I'm just getting to the point where I can't even try to be positive anymore.
I guess I'll have to wait until 2012 to see who votes more: the people who want this country to survive and thrive, or those that want to suck it dry so that we can just be another 3rd world country where everyone is miserable, but equal. (Well, except for those on the "Animal Farm" who are "more equal than others.") 2012 will be significant, alright, but not because of the Mayan calendar. In November I guess we'll find out if there will be a new beginning, or just a prolonged death of what was once the greatest nation on earth.
Boehner's plan....
Submitted by richard on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:30pm.
....as the old saying goes: " Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all." I beleive accepting Boehner"s plan now, with further adjustments six months from now is far better than anything sleezy Harry Reid will come up with. He was never honest in his dealings with the Republicans to date, so why should anything he cobbles together be viewed as compromising. There's always a catch with Harry.
In any case, Obama will cry VETO with anything the two parties agree to, so not much sense of hoping for a favorable outcome. Only way to deal with this empty suit is to hold his feet to the fire and squeeze him till he has no choice but to cave in, or risk default and take the blame for himself.
Settling
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:40pm.
Why should we settle? I've heard that argument before, and frankly I have yet to see anything passed get revamped as promised. It's nice to say that we'll pass it as is, and then go back to it, but that will never happen. There's no point supporting flawed legislation on the basis that "Well, it's better than nothing." Doing so will only allow more bad legislation to complicate the problem, and make fixing it that much more difficult.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
This is a game of chess not
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:00pm.
This is a game of chess not checkers. In chess some battles are lost to gain position for the winning of the war. This is what chess teaches. It has become obvious that any plan the House passes is not getting through the Senate. However if it does pass the Senate then the plan puts the debate squarely in the election debate.
We don't get everything we want and indeed might get the short end of the stick, but it gives the GOP some place to make a stand and the home court advantage. One of the reasons there has not been a budget for the last two years if because they don't want the public to be able to point any fingers at them. This bill gives us the ability to point the fingers, with facts.
We need to hope for continued
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:47pm.
We need to hope for continued gridlock. It's our only chance right now.
Republicans need to support Boehner's plan.
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:07pm.
I really hate that the spendaholics in the Senate and the White House have the power to continue feeding their addictions at the expense of our security and prosperity.
The ability to continue pursuing cuts and a balanced budget amendment must not be weakened by trying to get the "big deal" right now. Live to fight another day.
The real solution is to replace a lot of Senators with fiscal conservatives in 2012. That is vital to our survival. -bidn-
Fire 10% of government workers right now!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:03pm.
They get a whole lot less on unemployment. Then fire 5% each year subsequently until the debt is paid OFF and spending is less than 15% GNP. Reform & eliminate! Plans should be sound and work with human nature, not encourage addictive irresponsibility! And how did the Feds & states take control of so much land? Sell it back to the people!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Land
Submitted by Aquilinus on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:10pm.
The Feds own that 30%, not the States. I'm not opposed to Missouri owning land; I think that goes hand-in-hand with the State's conservation efforts, and I am quite proud of the conservation work being accomplished in Missouri. I do think, though, that the Feds shouldn't manage parks. That's a State job, and should become so by phasing out Federal bureaucracy and handing it over to the States, alongside land sales. The States should be the entities maintaining preserves and park lands for public use, and each State should decide on its own percentage of public land ownership.
My point was more that there are expenses in owning that land, and it's not being used by private individuals. Land ownership is one of the most basic property rights, and by owning such a significant portion of our land, the Federal government is inhibiting profitable development from private use.
Aquila non capit muscas.
Aquiris quodcumque rapis.
Seems some folks here
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:52pm.
think the population of the United States is static; that spending can remain at some statutory dollar amount and never be altered under any circumstance. That other countries including those who dislike us, will respect our desire not to address aggression, illegal trade, manipulation of their own currency, or a whole host of other things that effect how our government spends both foreign and domestically.
Now, disregarding certain supposed libertarians who believe government in any form is untenable and unnecessary, are the rest of us so jaded that no one can be trusted to hold public office? The appropriate action under these conditions, it would seem, would be to forfeit your vote. It is exactly this type of back-biting that put Harry Reid back in office. It's this kind of cannibalism that feeds the media narrative that the GOP is fractured and Obama has the upper hand. It's this kind of irrational criticism that will lead to four more years of Democratic control.
The British generally fought the Revolutionary War in the standard, full-frontal standing assault that was common during the era. Yet the outgunned and under-trained Americans fought using guerrilla tactics; hit and run; quick, flanking movements that disjointed and confused the enemy. It seems here that many watching this battle in Congress play out want the GOP to line up Tea Party members and attack the White House right down Pennsylvania Ave, even if they get picked off one-by-one in the process, achieving little except attrition. Sometimes you need to get what you can get, conserve ammo, and fall back while you await support. I'm of the mind that now is one of those times. The war will not be lost over this battle to raise the debt ceiling, unless, of course, we expend all of our ammunition and personnel on a battle for a relatively insignificant piece of ground.
It is anarchism that believes
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:10pm.
It is anarchism that believes government is untenable and unnecessary. In general, libertarians believe government is necessary, but the question is how much government is necessary. Granted, anarcho-capitalists do get lumped in with libertarians and are sometimes called libertarian anarchists.
Is there someone specific you had in mind when you say "certain supposed"?
Feeling guilty?
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:16pm.
There are those here, and members of blogs elsewhere, who purport to be libertarians and yet hold these views. That's why I said "supposed" libertarians.
Anarchists, oddly enough, depend almost entirely on the state to achieve their goals; they are the great hypocrites.
Why would I feel guilty?
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:04pm.
Why would I feel guilty? There is nothing wrong with holding either belief. It depends on whether the ones you are referring to a anarcho-capitalists. There wouldn't be anything "supposed" about it; they would fall under the libertarian umbrella. If not, then they may be straight-up anarchists. Care to name some?
Profound apologies in advance.
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:30pm.
Your commentary in this forum has always been good, and it distresses me that we must be at odds in part.
Yes, Reid got in with the aid of the Lowden faction pouting like children, but it only aided the cause. Here in Vegas there are union thugs aplenty, keeping Nevada 1 blue... I don't have the concrete word that went out on election day, but dear heaven, does this state need voter ID.
I digress.
Guerilla political tactics will not work here, as BHO and the statist majority have their agents in amongst us. Your analogy regarding the Revolutionary War was accurate as far as it went. Major and largely ignored factors was that it took place on the other side of the ocean with both peoples significantly of the same language and heritage.
What few we have in amongst them are sufficent to cause gridlock, no more...and regrettably that is this nation's only hope. I have said it before, keep on sending CC&B to the Senate every week, hell, every day. It's about the best of this miserable deal we're gonna get.
For my own self.. Debt ceiling increase? HA! Never. Not one more 95% zinc penny. Ever. Zip the budget to back to 2006 levels. Cancel TARP and FR and Obamacare. Cut 10% across the board. One-time only offer to cash out everyone on SS, and return it to being the option it was supposed to be and not the requirement that the statists (and sixteen states!) have been using as their own back door tax, to be raided at will.
I'm pleased that things have lasted as long as they have. If, at this time next week, we are still at the same ceiling, the multiple hordes of doom, disaster and plague will NOT have descended on us.
BHO's attempts at scaremongering will have fallen flat on their face.
Every spendaholic in both houses will be going thru DT's and/or finding Jesus.
Morning will have come back to America, and it will be time to be getting back to work... shoving out these scoundrels once and for all.
"It's not how you can hit, it's how hard you can -get- hit, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!"
Just another week, folks...
Please.
NVCon
Nevadan
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:16pm.
Both the Harry Reid and warfighting strategies were more euphemism than literal adaptation, though I understand where you're coming from. Maybe Castle/O'Donnell would have been more appropriate in the election example, but the point remains- GOP in-fighting between Tea Party and Establishment certainly hurt both Republican campaigns. The same holds for the debt-ceiling debate. Of course for all the attacks from Boehner's right, there are those to his left lobbing bombs at him as well; re: the Maverick today.
There is reality and there is perception. The reality is that no one really knows what will happen if we pass the increasingly hazy drop-dead date of August 2nd. Personally, I think it won't be nearly as drastic as Y2K; I mean, what will the world do without the US economy? I think we could make a proclamation on August 1st that we couldn't reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, so we're writing off our foreign debt and considering our books balanced. What? China's p-o'd? Too bad. What would they do about it? Attack? Of course not. Their economy wholly depends on ours. I guess maybe we'd risk losing all the good will we've eared back from Islamic countries since Hussein moved into the Oval Office, but I'm okay with that.
The perception is that if this thing doesn't get done, it'll be radical right-wingers that made the DOW fall 300 points. And those Damn Tea Partiers who made my credit card rate go from 14.99% to 16.99%. That Obama did all he could to try to work with those SOB's on the right, and now the Treasury has no recourse but to launch QE3 in order to keep interest rates manageable. Obama will run on it. Democrats will run on it. And we'll lose -not only momentum, but any chance at repealing O'Care and Dodd-Frank. We'll lose any chance at reigning in the EPA and the NLRB. We'll likely lose the House. I agree with Charles K. who said last night on BOR:
There's a reason only 20% or less define themselves as Tea Partiers; most people simply don't have the desire or patience to immerse themselves in politics and accept -on balance- much of the garbage that headlines the blog posts on this page. If NB didn't need to be here, I might believe that the GOP could sell a hard-line approach. But the fact is, they can't and they won't. Not due to incompetence or a failure of leadership; Boehner could take to the cameras every day wearing a red tie and the media would tell the public it's blue. And a lot of them would buy it.
Here’s some Hope (I hope)
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:53pm.
Five months from now, the 2012 Senate campaign will begin in earnest and will intensify as the countdown to the election progresses.
Based on the current analysis from Dr. Larry Sabato’s “Chrystal Ball” (link: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/ ) there 8 Democratic Senator up for re-election who need to be concerned about making a “right” turn if they have any chance of being re-elected:
Leading the list are 3 Senators whose seats are considered (at this time) to be “Toss-ups” in the 2012 election
1. Missouri – Claire McCaskill
2. Montana – Jon Tester
3. Nebraska – Ben Nelson
The next 5 Senators hold seats in states that are only considered to “Lean D” at this time:
4. Florida - Bill Nelson
5. Michigan – Debbie Stabenow
6. New Jersey – Bob Mendez
7. Ohio – Sherrod Brown
8. West Virginia – Joe Manchin
The point is that we conservatives have a chance to get some “cross-over” votes in the Senate after Jan 1, 2012 – All we need is 4 of them to cross-over (to save their sorry butts) to enact some of the desperately needed reforms proposed by the Republicans.
- Grump :o)
Note: The list above does not include “D” Senators who are retiring, or non-retiring ones holding seats in the categories of “Safe D” (7 Senators) or “Likely D” (2 Senators).
What needs to happen
Submitted by okie-pastor on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:28pm.
republicans should be screaming from the roof tops about stubborn democrats in the senate who refuse to support cut, cap and balance. Put the pressure on Obama, by reminding the American public a soution was offered and shot down in the senate. Make adjustments to Cut, cap, and balance if needed (as long as the premise that government needs to STOP SPENDING more than we take in) and vote on it again and again. And make senate democrats continue to vote against it over and over again, showing the American public who really is serious about solving our governments addiction to spending.
The CC&B that was passed was
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:07pm.
The CC&B that was passed was not a solution. It didn't cut anything. It raised the debt ceiling and did nothing to cut entitlements or military spending. It is impossible to ignore these two areas that account for more than 75% of government spending. There hasn't been a single serious bill introduced by the Republicans concerning the debt and deficit.
Hurry!
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:54pm.
you may want to get your bid in before it's too late.
[edit]
6 minutes left and you'll need a cool mil to sport this baby.
Maybe I missed something here
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:46pm.
Maybe I missed something here or is it the fog of war. Isn't the Congress supposed to pass a budget for 2012? Why not extend the debt limit to only reach October 1st for the new budget to take effect? No more continuing resolutions should be allowed in the House at all.
Normally, there are 13 appropriation bills comprising the whole of the budget. Reduce each bill to FY2007 levels and let the Dems scream or amend each one in the Senate. If the House won't accept the wild spending amendments, let that appropriation bill die there and thus the Dems take full responsibility for the selective shut down of that particular section of the government. This all or nothing stuff is clouding the real issue of the Dems spending increase under Pelosi's reign of incompetence. More importantly, if Obama wants his EPA to even exist, it is he that should decide if he wants a half loaf or no loaf, not the GOP.
Let's face the real fact here, the libs know they either win this one anyway they can or their agenda is cooked. They are counting on the same outcome as under Clinton when he refused to trim government spending. The FY2000 budget was balanced no thanks to him. At that time there was no Tea Party movement, the citizenry was not engaged and worse, didn't see how it affected their individual circumstances. Things have changed since then. The big question is IF the House refuses to go along with a debt limit increase will the public have finally gotten the point there simply just isn't anymore money floating out there to seize or borrow?
Are people scared enough for their own self interest to stop the wild deficit spending to cut up the credit card OR are they scared enough for their own self interest to keep receiving the EIC check come April to take out more credit cards? It seems to be a dicey outcome, it shouldn't be but it is. Have we reached 50% plus one yet of those on the government dole? If we have, Obama will be re-elected and it's time for you and me to take our marbles to relocate to another country because there is only one way that scenario ends - Zimbabwe. There is no happy ending here, IF the country can not face the fact it can not go on as Obama and Reid demand it should, then the 2012 elections really don't matter anymore.
Artificial deadline
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:51pm.
I thought they passed a CR that's good until September. If that's the case and I think it is, people don't seem to realize that this August 2 is just an artificial deadline, emphasis on artificial.
For pete's sake, I can say that Friday is the deadline before something is supposed to happen, but it doesn't make it true unless there's actually a good reason for it, one not defined by a lib dem.
-Jon
You apparently missed a great deal during the 90's.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:03pm.
Suggesting the citizenry was disengaged at the time is a stunningly inaccurate assertion. Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act was relentlessly blasted by the GOP as the largest tax increase in US history which would produce calamitous economic consequences. Limbaugh and Gingrich both categorically guaranteed it would plunge the country into a deep recession. It became such an article of faith with Republicans that not a single senator or congressman of that party dared vote in favor of it. That the dire predictions proved to be embarrassingly misguided never quite filtered through to the electorate who, having bought into the sky-is-falling myth, threw out the Dems in the '94 midterms unaware of the positive effects the legislation was actually having on the financial health of the nation.
Jer
Clinton, the savior---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:10pm.
as always, from a liberal Democrat's perspective.
Pffffffft ! *
MD
* Balderdash
The only thing I missed was
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:19pm.
The only thing I missed was your opinion there Jer, as you are entitled to it. But you aren't entitled to your own facts.
FACT: Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and shortly there after he and the Democrat majority passed a huge tax increase. This was after lying to the American people about NOT raising taxes.
FACT: The citizenry recoiled at the tax increase and in 1994 Democrats lost both houses of Congress to the GOP. Spin what you will about why the Dems were tossed but the one thing is for sure, when Clinton lied to the American people before his election about NOT raising taxes and then with his buddies in Congress promptly raising taxes, he proved himself to be a liar, what you liberals call salesmanship. Most people don't like or trust liars, and Bill Clinton was famous for his whoppers over those 8 years.
FACT: During the entire Clinton period in office from 1992 to 2000, the price of oil and gasoline was fairly stable and as a result the economy was able to recover from those tax increases.
FACT: The GOP controlled Congress having failed to repeal Clinton's tax increases then put the federal budget on course to balance through restraining the rate of increase by 2000 with Clinton and the Democrat minority screaming and kicking all 6 years thereafter about starving the poor and elderly. No child starved and no elderly person did either. NO Jer, I didn't miss the 90s, apparently you have selective memory about why the federal shutdown occured, Bill Clinton wanted to spend MORE money not LESS, the GOP wanted to spend LESS money not MORE.
FACT: The Bush tax cuts in essence was the full repeal of the Clinton tax hike, Democrats never got over that repeal and have NEVER given up on hiking taxes and hiking spending to this very day.
FACT: After 2003 when the final tax cuts were implimented revenues to the treasury INCREASED by $1 TRILLION annually. THAT's AN UNDENIABLE FACT.
In putting forward a major
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:04am.
In putting forward a major new economic blueprint to help pull his campaign out of third place, Gov. Bill Clinton has retreated from one of his most controversial proposals: calling for an income tax cut for the middle class.
His new economic program, announced Sunday, focuses on ways to rebuild America's economy, but its most significant change from previous plans was Mr. Clinton's scaling back on his call for a middle-class tax cut, which he had long insisted was needed as a matter of fairness.
Governor Clinton's plan aims to speed economic growth by investing $200 billion to improve education and job training and to rebuild the nation's highways, communications system and inner cities. His proposal won vigorous applause in Houston today from the nation's mayors. [ Page A19. ]
Former Senator Paul E. Tsongas of Massachusetts, a rival in the early primaries, had accused Mr. Clinton of pandering to voters in supporting the tax cut, and some campaign experts said he had altered his position to solidify Mr. Tsongas's support and to forestall future accusations that he tells voters what they want to hear.
Previously, Mr. Clinton offered middle-class taxpayers both a children's tax credit and a lower income tax rate, worth about $350 per family. In the new economic plan, he is offering them one or the other, but not both. The original plan would have cost about $26 billion, and the new plan about half that, campaign officials say. [emphasis added]
Bruce Reed, the Governor's deputy campaign manager for policy issues, said the chief reason Governor Clinton changed his position was his growing concern that the Federal budget deficit needed to be reined in. After he was criticized for pandering on the tax cuts, that would certainly be an important change. Concern about the deficit mushroomed during the recent debate for a balanced budget amendment, and Ross Perot has been lambasting the White House and Congress for expanding the Federal debt to $4 trillion.
With economic growth beginning to pick up, a middle-class tax cut is no longer as necessary to spur the economy.
source NYT June, 1992
Gov. Bill Clinton asked
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:19am.
Gov. Bill Clinton asked manufacturers and business people today to buy his new plan for restoring the country's economic health, including his proposals for increases in corporate taxes and cuts in executive pay.
"It is clearly time to reassess and change our policies and face reality," the Arkansas Governor and presumed Democratic Presidential nominee told business executives attending a meeting here of the National Association of Manufacturers.
The association members, many of them Republicans and many of them major figures in the nation's business community, took Mr. Clinton's suggestions about higher taxes and lower pay in straight-faced silence. Applause for Some Proposals But the business leaders vigorously applauded some of his other proposals for restoring health to the economy, including his calls for welfare reform, tax credits for the working poor and heavy investment in the nation's schools and deteriorating highway and communication systems.
Further, they applauded Mr. Clinton when he called on them to demand economic plans from President Bush, who will be the Republican nominee, and Ross Perot, the Texas business tycoon who is expected to announce an independent Presidential candidacy soon.
source NYT June, 1992
A liberal point of view
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:43pm.
A liberal point of view rationalizing a tax increase when the lack of restraint in spending by a then out of control spendaholic Dem Congress.
FACT: After the Dems tax increase in 1992 we STILL were running deficits and liberals continued to spend ever more money.
FACT: After the GOP take over in 1994, they restrained the GROWTH of the federal budget but they did not reduce spending.
FACT: As soon as Dems took over Congress in 2007 after winning the 2006 elections, they INCREASED spending doubling the annual deficit from the year before, and then doubled it again the next year and then jacked up the deficit spending to $1 trillion A YEAR.
Observation: Both GOP bills rejected by the Democrats did not propose a cut in spending, they only stopped the rate of growth. In other words, Democrats are childishly demanding to spend more, tax more instead of simply restraining the RATE OF GROWTH. The entire GOP strategy is NOT cutting spending, but RESTRAINING spending. This is why both the Dem and GOP plans are doomed to failure, you can not expand the economic output of the country by sucking up all the investment capital in deficit spending. The annual deficit exceeds the entire combined profits of ALL the businesses in this country and you want a tax increase and not cut spending?
BTW- the Dems are really
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:59pm.
BTW- the Dems are really pushing Reid's non plan, plan. I just got an email supporting the Reid plan from a Democrat Senator. The $2.7 trillion deficit reduction offered by Reid's plan is smoke and mirrors resulting in ZERO real cuts. In effect, Reid's plan is Obama's original clean debt limit increase request. This is why Obama made the last minute demand to for $400 billion in increased taxes, he knew Boehner would walk away. It was a tactical move on Obama's part to present himself as extreme in wanting tax increases and the GOP as extreme in wanting spending reductions. The Reid plan is in the preverbal middle, no reductions or tax increases.
The Dems aren't the only ones pushing Reid's
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:34pm.
plan. But thank heaven there are a few Repubs who are actually adults and realize a BBA is just a theatrical political stunt and are willing to snap the whip at the adolescent Congressional newbies who couldn't govern a lemonade stand.
Jer
Well, if Corker is concerned about
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:02pm.
0 having to face this again,he's a fool. 0 put himself in this position, Jer. And before you tell me again, how he's the only adult in the room, puh-leeze. Where's his plan, and how did the CBO score it? Oh, snap! They can't "score a speech".
As for your concern over how many Repubs are actually adults, at least there are a few, sadly can't say that for your side of the aisle. Couldn't govern a lemonade stand? Your side can't even come up with a budget when they're in control of everything, so you have little room to criticize.
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:45pm.
Pat Toomey PA - When Pat left the financial sector in 1990, he and his brothers started a successful, family-owned restaurant business with several Pennsylvania locations.
Rand Paul - Opthamologist with his own clinic = business owner
Marco Rubio - In the late 1990s he served as a City Commissioner for West Miami. Rubio was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2000, representing the 111th House district. He was elected Speaker in November 2006. = governing experience
Ron In 1979, he moved to Wisconsin with his wife, and started PACUR, LLC, a custom sheet extruder company, with his brother-in-law, Patrick Curler, for whom the company is named.[9] For nearly one year, Johnson worked as the accountant and as a machine operator, trading 12-hour shifts with his brother-in-law. The company later expanded into the area of medical device packaging which involved hiring salespeople and exporting products to other countries. Johnson managed the sales as well as the financial aspects of the business, and ultimately purchased the company outright.[10]Johnson = business experience
So, I'd say they have creds beyond being "newbies". Sometimes a fresh wind blowing is a good thing.
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:27am.
I've been saying for a long time now that if unemployment is still hovering aroung 9% as the 2012 election nears, Obama is history irrespective of his opponent. Otherwise, the only potential candidate who truly impresses me is Marco Rubio, but his prospects shape up better for 2016 rather than a run next year.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:41am.
I also see something in Rubio, but he looks like a professional politician, and that doesn't thrill me. At the same time I don't want someone completely inexperienced in the ways of D.C. I know it's contradictory, but part of Obama's problem was his lack of political skills. His "elections have consequences" statement is most certainly coming back to bite him. The GOP must love having a little bit of payback for that one.
I'm with Dave though, anyone but Obama. 2012 may be to late to salvage what remains of this once great country.
Don't despair, Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:01am.
This country is still great and it has survived far worse fates than an Obama presidency.
Anyway, the times I've seen and heard Rubio, he appeared bright, articulate, quick on his feet, and never seemed fazed or caught off guard by any question, regardless of the subject or how it was framed. That's no easy task, particularly considering he's a relative newcomer. True, an 'excessively professional' politician can come off a bit too slick, but on the other hand someone without the requisite skills can be made to look awfully foolish and not ready for prime time. Rubio looks like a "natural" to me. Admittedly, my opinions are based on initial impressions. Maybe I caught him on especially good days.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:50am.
I'm sure the Romans felt the same way about their survival right up until the barbarians were at the gates if the city.
It's not just obama, it's, to borrow Michele Malkins phrase, the culture of corruption that exists in DC. I could go on, but it's almost six a.m. here, and I may be letting my insomnia take control of my mood.
As far as politicians, I prefer if they have some real world experience to help guide their legislation. Professional politicians are like teenagers, they know everything but have done nothing.
:)
Rad79
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:34pm.
Liberal:
This country is still great and it has survived far worse fates than an Obama presidency.
Conservative:
I'm sure the Romans felt the same way about their survival right up until the barbarians were at the gates if the city.
Yes, Rad, that's the tired line we get from most libs today -- or the ones who call themselves "centrists". My slightly-less commie brother gave me the same schpeel. And, yes, they seem to admit to all the corruption and that things stink more than usual in D.C., but believe that, like the Titanic, all of this is "too big to sink". They take "taking it all for granted" to new heights.
Funny, when people ragged on Bush during his tenure, I never even went near the argument "well, our country has survived worse/everything" because, well, they were FOS about Bush and wrong in their dimwitted, brainwashed opinion. Now, conversely, you pin them to the wall and they seem to bend (cuz they can't argue the facts) and admit that Obama sucks, and then roll out this line.
My conclusion is, once again, that this "progressive" ideology is a disease, and it renders its believers.... I dunno, something. It's very bizarre.
- Shy on Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:49pm.
"This country is still great and it has survived far worse fates than an Obama presidency."
Elaborate. What far worse fates? (never mind just "worse".) Do you mean, far worse presidents? Ones who were far more radical and extreme ideologically? Or different examples?
- Shy's Grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy...Why?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:59pm.
It appears your mind is already firmly made up with the preconceived stereotypical assumptions I encounter with alarming frequency among many of my conservative friends. And you are further burdened by the politically contentious relationship you have long endured with your 'slightly less commie' brother.
Jer
Rad, they aren't "adults",
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:27am.
they didn't propose any tax increases. That seems to be the criteria that some use to determine who's serious and who's an adult.
By "some", UpNorth, would you by any chance be referring to
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:01am.
moi? If so, you swung and missed. There are plenty of GOP "adults" who are not proposing tax increases. But they know better than to take foolish risks with the nation's FF&C standing by playing silly brinkmanship games--especially when the tail has already succeeded in wagging the dog.
Jer
Rather than re-type it,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:12am.
Jer, see my second paragraph at 9:02pm.
The Reid plan is just another
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:29pm.
The Reid plan is just another pack of faux spending cuts to the tune of $2.7 trillion over 10 years. Reid's plan is to spend another $2.3 trillion by 2013. That's not the stuff of grown ups, that's the wild fantasy of childish magical thinking that anyone is going to loan us $2.3 trillion.
That money is going to be PRINTED by the Fed buying all those bonds via straw purchases after the Banks buy those bonds with money loaned from the Fed. QE3 is what you call sound fiscal thinking???? The end result is to devalue the Dollar even further than it is. Honestly Jer, you think deficit spending another $2.3 trillion over a space of 18 months is going to help our financial situation when Reid's plan is only to save $2.7 trillion over 10 years? What about the following year and the year after that? You honestly think deficit spending to the tune of over a trillion a year is going to put the country on sound financial footing? You must be smoking some really good weed.
Let the country go into
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:10pm.
Let the country go into default. Republicans have done their part by presenting their plan in writing and voting on it and passing it with bipartisan support in the House. Obama hates successful Americans so much that he would rather raise taxes on them than keep America solvent.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonBoehner has failed us, as his plan is just more smoke...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:27pm.
...and mirrors.
As I see it, if there is a glimmer of hope left for this country, it will be found in a TEA Party takeover of the republican leadership, and that no later than the 2012 election.
I know there are many who think we can wait until 2014, or even 2016, to right the severely listing American ship, but we don't have that much time.
Nowhere near.
I'm really not sure 2012 is going to get here in time, as a very big part of me believes that we have waited until it's too late.
We are now past the point where the parasites outnumber the hosts.
I honestly do not see how any nation founded on the ideals that this one was can surive that situation intact for very much longer - and I am talking in terms of months, not years.
Either we get the moochers, leeches, and ticks the hell out of the voting booths of America, or else.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Solution.
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:19am.
Pauper's Oath, with fangs. Go on welfare? Fine, you lose your voting priveledges. You get em back after the next state and/or federal election if you manage to get back to work. If not, then you do not get them back until you do get work. At least the leeches will not be voting themselves raises by voting for those that will extend or jack up their dole.
NVCon
What don't politicians get about budgets?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:49am.
When we run short of money in our household, we don't talk about cutting back on expenses into the future, we cut back NOW. We stop spending today, we don't say "well in five years we won't go out to dinner twice a week", we stop going out tonight!
The Tea Party gets it. I'm hoping they don't get their a$$es in line until some real changes are made.
~Damned if we do, damned if we don't
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:15pm.
If the Repubs and Dems agree on a deal, and the economy continues it's slow, sucking swirl, (which it will, because anything the establishment Repubs and Dems agree on will be a big load of crapola), Dems/media blame Republicans for making them agree to a lousy deal. If no deal is reached, Dems/media blame Republicans for throwing the economy over the brink. (which it already is)
The fact is, this country has spent itself into a hole so deep that the only thing that will get us out is a dramatic alteration of the way it does business. As in, get rid of a bunch of useless federal agencies and slash taxes. Since that isn't going to happen right now, the only way out is for the newly-elected Repubs to grasp their principles with both hands and hang on. If they cave we'll have to start all over again, but if they keep the beachhead the cavalry will arrive in January 2013.
damned Brunette
Submitted by botg on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:19pm.
as long as Obama's cabal is in charge of energy policy, the EPA, and threatening to steal business profits; the economy WILL remain in a morass
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
~What a great subject line
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:35pm.
:-p
:^)
Submitted by botg on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:42pm.
just keep your chickens home to roost
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
~botg
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:41pm.
I caught her trying again in another corner of the yard. Persistent little wench.
I wish the wife was that persistent.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:49pm.
Then again, she wouldn't have to be. ;)
~Just keep her out of the yard
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:00pm.
I hear ants are terrible in Texas.
Ants in TX
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:41pm.
Fire ants SUCK here, despite the best efforts of Texas A&M to purge this state of them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yeah, well, leave it to an Aggie...:)
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:02pm.
Ants are a terrible scourge on this great state.
A wonderful gift from South America, ain't it?
OUCH!!!! Dammit!!!
We have the same fire ant
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 12:25am.
We have the same fire ant problem in Florida, BUT we have a solution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhXl9_K_9qE&feature=related
LOL!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:53pm.
But it is seriously correct! Orthene kills the crap out of ants, but be prepared: the stuff stinks like crazy!
Everyone enjoy the retard paulbot troll today?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:24am.
Nothing like a good retard snitstorm after we have begged to get rid of this troll.
Oh look what the retard Satchmo had for us today ---
Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same for the 50th time. Yay! Happy Yippy Fun posts!
You are all stupid fools. Yay! Satchmo insults everyone!
The Paultard Retard TardTard Paulbottard quotes Ron Paul again. Yay! Enjoy your troll!
The Paultard once again demands proof even though he has never given the slightest iota of proof on his Stupidity here. Yay! Happy troll day!
Oh, did you give proof to the trolltard Paulbot retard? Dismissed! Yay! What fun! Let's keep this troll here!
Rubio SUCKS! Paul Ryan SUCKS! But let's all love on Ron Paul huh? Screw you people that call this retard tardtroll paultroll a troll! Let's keep him here forever!
Let's cut the Defense budget and get rid of DHS and pull all of our troops out of every single theater right friggin' now. WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR ALLIES. Put the troops on the border with Canada where the real problem is! NOW! SCREW YOU NEWSBUSTERS. I. HAVE. A. RIGHT. TO. TROLL. HERE.
Is your Congressman one of the Tea Party guys that just came in in 2010. Well he is stupid and SO ARE YOU! I. HAVE. A. RIGHT. TO. TROLL. HERE.
Your congressman SUCKS! And so do you! GET. IT. THROUGH. YOUR. HEAD. I. HAVE. A. RIGHT. TO. TROLL. HERE.
Your Congressman is a big sissy. Yay! Trolls are such fun! Happy Paultard Yippy day!
Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy! I love anarchy! Hey, I don't support anarchy! Go anarchy! I said I don't support anarchy. Why do you keep saying I support anarchy? I_heart_Anarchy!!!!! Stop saying I support anarchy. Dang. Trolls are fun!
You are stupid. You can't read. Only paultardtrollbots can read. So shut up! I. HAVE. A. RIGHT. TO. TROLL.
Republicans SUCK! Republicans SUCK! Republicans SUCK! Gawd they SUCK! I. HAVE. A RIGHT. TO. TROLL
Anarchy rules! What gives you the idea I like anarchy? Stop saying that.
Blibber. Blabber. Blibber. Blabber. I. HAVE. A. RIGHT. TO. TROLL.
Republicans SuckSuck the SuckSuck. My plan? I have none. Why do you ask? Please. Can we keep this troll here forever! What fun this is! We were so so so wrong about asking for this troll to get sent to troll hell.
Republicans make bad decisions and so do you and you suck really really bad so suck it all of you.
I.
Have.
A.
Right.
To.
Troll.
As.
Much.
As.
I.
Want.
Just want to say thanks, Vet
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:55am.
I believe this is my first direct reply to you on any subject. Having been here less than a year, when I first registered I thought that you were a bit excessive in your criticisms of certain “trolls”… but so help me, if it didn’t turn out that you were right all along!
It seems every thread, where this particular one goes, turns into an inane discussion about personal perceptions vice actual facts. The great train wreaks of history didn’t involve as many derailments as the number found here when this guy shows-up. “Documentation” of arguments appears to be an alien concept and even the use of a polite disclaimers (such as: “IMO,” or “Just my 2 cents,” etc.) are not used – replaced with (undocumented and unreasonable) declarative sentences of “fact.”
Thanks for your efforts, Vet.
- Grump :o)
Grumpy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:04am.
The Vet does indeed do a wonderful service by reminding these nasty little trolls how worthless their tired old songs are.
Vet, I don't know where you get your patience to deal with the trolls, but thanks from me also!
You got it Sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:11am.
Uncle Jer the lawyer put it in lawyerly words but it all comes down to the same thing -
You have this offputting habit of making these sweepingly authoritative 'carved-in-stone' pronouncements as if they were established fact and settled law subject to neither reasoned dispute nor reasonable debate.
That's what I mean when I say you are "wrong", not that your argument is utterly devoid of merit--there is indeed a FF & C issue, although the clause must also be viewed in the context of clearly recognized qualifications and limitations--but because of your absolute insistence there is no other possible interpretation or outcome.
The paultard takes the tiniest sliver of the thinnest reed of an argument and comes in here and acts as though it is established fact and we are all sucksuck monkeyturds for not seeing it.
Hope you weren't too annoyed by me in the beginning. I do try to keep the tolerance of the crowd in mind when I take on trolls. The problem is - trolls never ever care about the boys and girls.
No sir... was not irritated in the slightest.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:37am.
I just didn’t have any input, reference, or (candidly) any interest in what your exposure of the trolls.
That has changed. We are living through an important and perilous time in our nations history. The seemingly constant deflections from the subject at hand on any thread has become annoying. Many great “posts” by thoughtful members no longer get my attention because the comments either break-down into a sandbox discussion or are hidden in the rancorous hubbub caused by the trolls.
Now, in all honesty, I don’t mind someone who wants to “stir-the-pot” or breaks in with a witty or humorous remark that deflects or turns the thread in a different direction… it is just the plain old dissention and the perverse need of the troll to demand that we justify our opinions as to fact (while providing none of their own). It really has become quite boring
Again, thank you for your efforts, and I will do my best to take your advice seriously.
- Grump :o)
Forgot to say thanks to The Vet*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 2:03pm.
Sometimes NBers do forget to tell The Vet thanks for his diligence and tireless efforts to keep track of the trolls' own words.
Let me take this nudge from Grumpy as a reminder to thank The Veteran of a 1000 Psychic Wars that the cajun greatly appreciates his work. I tried it once on Incestmo, got to 4 inane comments and I was bored to tears. Your perseverance is amazing.
Merci mon ami.
The lone criticism of my favorite nephew ironically defines
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:39pm.
one of the Vet's greatest strengths: a single-minded determination to corner and expose his quarry which can on occasion devolve into an exercise of exacting revenge against the comparatively innocent rather than underscoring his far more frequent and laudable pursuit (and climactic bagging) of the nefarious, indisputably guilty troll.
But, aside from and in addition to the foregoing, with his near-infallible instincts, absolutely peerless, exhaustively performed and impeccably assembled research, a capacity for consistently intelligent analysis, and a wildly hilarious, marvelously imaginative wit, there is no doubt the Vet would have made--and still could be--an outstanding prosecutor, any place, any time, at any level.
Uncle Jer
His penchant for lying would
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:45pm.
His penchant for lying would get in the way, and any law student would dismantle any of his "arguments" with ease.
Still waiting sissy satchmo coward troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:45pm.
One week now. Name one. Name one lie sissy. Guarantee still holds for one week. Guaranteed this sissy will not name one single lie.
Guaran-damn-teed.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 12:27pm.
You go sissy satchmo, prove you are the biggest coward this site has ever seen.
You call me a liar.
I say name one single lie. Name one lie sissy. One. Name one. 8 days Sissy.
You run like the sissy you are.
The silence is deafening.
Sissy.
Coward.
Milquetoast.
Milksop.
Mollycoddle.
It is all you will ever be.
Now you be sure to demand respect. Don't forget that. Sissies like you should be respected. Yeah, that is how it works.
Sick freak
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:42pm.
So why can't YOU, NB's SUPREME EXPERT, dismantle his arguments with ease?
You lying sick freak...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What's he lied about Satchmo?
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 12:31pm.
What's he lied about Satchmo? Just because he has your number doesn't mean he's lying. It means he's done his homeowork documenting you ridiculous history of nonsensical rants on this site.
And it is so much fun to watch..........
GOP shouldn't give Obama was Pelosi's congress wouldn't . . .
Submitted by humanzee on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:59am.
The fallout is all on Obama. The Democrats can beat their chests all they want.
They didn't pass a budget in 2010. Obama is trying to get the GOP to take a hit for Democrat policies.
The GOP that is now in control of the House is not the same GOP that gave GW Bush what he wanted. It's not the Pelosi House that focused on lifting "don't ask, don't tell" over the economy.
Obama and Pelosi had their chance, they decided other things were a priority. Too bad, boo hoo. The GOP would be dumb to be left holding the bag for Obama.