Bob Schieffer Asks Senators: Why Are You Wasting Time Debating Balanced Budget Amendment?
With trillion dollar budget deficits as far as the eye can see, a balanced budget amendment is sounding pretty good to an overwhelming majority of Americans.
Apparently CBS's Bob Schieffer isn't amongst them, as he actually asked Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Sunday's "Face the Nation," "Why are you wasting time debating that?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D-ILLINOIS): The good news is that Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell are sitting down and working out an approach that we are going to try to tackle this week in the United States Senate. There’ll be a debate on the balanced budget amendment, but no one believes there sixty-seven votes for any version of that. And secondly, we’re going to be working toward a way to escape the crisis that would come, if we default on America’s national debt. These are all good things, but they don’t get the big job done. The President said he’s committed to a big deal, four trillion over ten years. I am committed to it. Harry Reid is committed to it. We need some bipartisan buy in here and I think we can do it.
BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Well, let me just ask you, Senator Durbin. That begs the question. You said you’re going to spend this week debating a balanced budget amendment that everybody knows has no chance of passing. So why are you wasting time debating that?
Well, maybe because a Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll in May found 65 percent of respondents in favor of such an amendment.
I guess Schieffer is part of the 27 percent opposed, for moments later, when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) tried to explain why it was a worthwhile issue to be talking about right now, Schieffer pushed back:
SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OKLAHOMA) Why in the world isn’t there the votes for a balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Senate. That’s the question Americans ought to be asking, sixty-seven votes to say we ought to live within our means when we are borrowing forty-three cents out of every dollar that we are spending today? I think the American people are-- would like to see us do that. That didn’t mean we have to make those decisions. Dick Durbin has worked real hard to try to build a consensus around four-- around four trillion dollars and we have to have something at least at four or four and a half trillion dollars if, in fact, we’re going to send a signal that we understand our problems and that we are going to continue to-- to-- to reward those who invest in us by paying the bills. But we has to--have to do it in a way that will allow us to continue to borrow the money until we get out of thisproblem.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well-- well, Senator Coburn, whether or not we ought to have the votes in the-- in the Senate for a balanced budget amendment when you talk about a constitutional amendment, you’re talking about something that could take years to get passed, because it also has to be ratified by the states and all of that.
SENATOR TOM COBURN: Sure.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The problem that we have now is right now, the government is on the verge of running out of money here, and-- and being unable to pay its bills. So why, why shouldn’t that part of it be put aside for a while and concentrate on-- on-- on doing something to get this debt ceiling either raised and the-- and the deficit down now?
Got that? Why should Congress waste time talking about legislation to require a balanced budget when we're in the midst of a budget crisis?
Let's just raise the debt ceiling and kick that can down the road - again!
Sadly, one quite imagines the vast percentage of America's media agreeing with Schieffer about a balanced budget amendment debate being a waste of time.
It sure is a good thing folks like him have television programs to so poorly inform the public.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
One thing is absolutely for sure...
Submitted by jdripper on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:01pm.
Sen. Rubio had little Bob Schieffer for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I have never seen a Republican rip a member of the media so badly as Rubio did. I am surprised that Schieffer did not raise a white flag and scream "no mas, no mas".
Jack
Link
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:30pm.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cbs-bob-schieffer-reminds-sen-marco-rubio-oba...
Looks like.....
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 12:26am.
......Rubio has had enough of the Obama nonsense.
BECAUSE bobbie.......
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 2:19pm.
If you would get off your knees from in front of your man Barack.......and stop being Obamas PRISON WIFE you would understand.... THAT DEBATING BILLS IS THEIR JOB....... no matter if they pass or not! Just because the Republicans don't see eye to (one eye) with Barack like you do, doesn't matter!!! Now wipe your mouth and grow a set and try to be objective, Instead of OFFENSIVE like you are!
Wow!
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 4:12pm.
Reading the comments, the lefties over there are a nasty bunch aren't they?
"I want to save Social
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:16am.
"I want to save Social Security. I want to save Medicare."
Yep. Those Republicans are nothing like Democrats, alright. Isn't it refreshing to hear them calling for an end to entitlements and to the welfare state?
Satchmo=troll!
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 4:15pm.
Do not feed the Scratch!
FYI, your quote should be
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:41pm.
FYI, your quote should be attributed to Michael Kinsley. The phenomenon bears his name: Kinsley gaffe.
Satchmo = Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:27pm.
This troll will grasp at anything to troll. Ignore this troll.
Rukus
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:44pm.
Here's a good one:
"Put on a helmet: I don't want a mess when you read that and your head explodes" I've seen it before in various iterations, so I'd say anon gets the credit
Ronald Reagan
Isn't that a loaded question?
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:02pm.
It's like asking someone have they stopped beating their wife yet. This is juvenile.
When did the budget deficits go from billions to trillions?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:22pm.
Maybe I have been doing a Rip Van Winkle, but it jarring to think of trillions.
Just don't tell Barama or
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:40pm.
Just don't tell Barama or these other blood-suckers what the next number after a 'trillion' is, because they will be shooting for it!!!
And when I see Turban, I can automatically assume that whatever he says is exactly OPPOSITE if what I, and millions like me, want to happen!!! Same with Harry the Weasel.............in fact, he has got to be one of the most pathetic figures in ANY position of power that I've ever seen!!! How do these things happen???
And we are talking about the Senate, right??? Are they known for getting ANYTHING done in a timely manner??? Unless, of course, it is some monsterous bill that nobody has read that needs to be passed NOW!!!!
Actually, Schieffer may have accidentally stumbled onto a point.
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:45pm.
Bob Schieffer is not the sharpest tool in the shed. But he may have accidentally stumbled onto a valid point regarding the Senate's debate of a balanced budget amendment.
Think about it. Since the Senate has not actually passed a budget for over 2 years, what's the point of requiring that their non-existent budgets be balanced?
Here's my hope for an outcome of this whole sordid Senate budget situation: In January of 2013, the GOP will take control of the Senate. And then they can begin prosecution of the previous Senate leadership for their willful failure to fulfill their legal obligation to pass a federal budget for the past two years.
This looks more and more like
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 12:20am.
This looks more and more like it's going to be Clinton redux - eviscerate the military and keep welfare going. Sickening.
Ronald Reagan
Constitution
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 12:33am.
Waste of time. I see. Why? Because it's treated as toilet paper? and what sense does it make to spend time to put words on toilet paper?
Libs are scared to death of a balanced budget amendment that has with it a requirement for 2/3 majorities to raise taxes. At their core, there is nothing that agrees with balancing the budget, unless along with it comes a method making it extremely easy to raise taxes...........and the upcoming cut/cap/balance bill handles that nonsense.
The Republicans should simply ask Bob....."Why is that a waste of time." Then see what comes from his great mind.
Bob S. doesn't care because he thinks he'll be dead
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 12:34am.
Bob's a fine one to talk. Of course HE doesn't care. He's got his pile of wealth already. He's old and he has a foot in the grave already. He doesn't give a rat's rear end what kind of horrors Obama and his other Democrat stooges are piling onto the rising generations.
In Bob's tiny liberal brain, he'll be long dead before the Obama depression horrors really start to unfold. Bob thinks he'll be safe in the grave when the food, fuel and water riots start breaking out. He thinks he'll be long gone when the dollar collapses and it takes a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.
Of course this aged, liberal dinosaur fart of a human being sees no problem with all that. As long as he dies before the (bleep) hits the fan, he thinks everything is just swell.
i get what he was saying. he
Submitted by rob.man on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 2:17am.
i get what he was saying. he wasn't saying that it wasn't important at all, but as of right NOW it isn't because the reality is that it would take allot of time and it has to get ratified by all the states so he has a point. how is that going to get done by august 2nd?
I honestly don't see any bias in this piece
Actually getting this through
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 3:45am.
Actually getting this through is NOT the issue and Bob should know that. Politics is all about timing/owning the narrative, and right now, the R's *have* to push this to change the narrative if there is ever going to be anything done other than the insane course we've been on.
Ronald Reagan
Chris Wallace was far more
Submitted by tcm14 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 3:41am.
Chris Wallace was far more biased than Bob Schieffer today. Wallace repeated the "$3 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue" Dem talking point at least 5 times while I was watching. Wallace had a Dem congressman and a Republican congressman on the show, and it was very clearly 2 against 1 with Wallace and the Dem ganging up on the Republican. In fact, a lot of the time the Dem didn't even have to say anything because Wallace was doing a better job hammering the Dem talking points than the Dem congressman was.
"balanced budget amendment" is a bad idea
Submitted by cats1cowboy on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 5:01am.
A balanced budget for a household or a business is a great idea, since they are limited in the amount of income they receive. Therefore, they must stop spending more than they earn. For government, which earns no money but gets its money from the tax-payers, a "balanced budget amendment" means more spending and more taxes. It will be "the law" to raise taxes in order to cover increased spending.
Try reading the proposed Amendment
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 5:53am.
It's clear from your comments that you are clueless as to what it says.
One of its provisions caps Federal spending at a fixed percentage of GDP. We are already spending more than the proposal would allow, so it means a spending cut at the least.
Government already ignores
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:04am.
Government already ignores the Constitution now. You think a BBA is going to stop that? It's a smoke and mirrors game, and people are falling for it.
I think this is the ...
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 3:21pm.
petard those who violate the Constitution will be hoisted upon.
The mood has changed in America. Obama has accomplished that much. He has awakened all those everyday Americans who have not been paying close enough attention to what their elected leaders have been doing. Enough are now paying attention to constitute an electoral majority.
If a BBA does not stop the drunken spending binge then Katy bar the door. All bets are off. The people will clearly perceive government has have broken faith with them and no longer deserves to govern. The only question will be what is done about it. You seem to believe nothing will happen. That is just plain foolish.
Foolish? Decades of evidence
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 4:58pm.
Foolish? Decades of evidence shows that nothing will happen when the Constitution is violated and ignored. Hell, nothing happens when our rights are collectively violated.
The old paradigms are changing
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 6:11pm.
The Clinton Administration in a display of hubris and incopmpetence not seen since the Reconstruction, trampled the rights of some kooks in Texas. This act motivated loner, malcontent and extremist, Timothy McVeigh, to flatten the Alfred P Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City. This was transient and futile.
I think Obama and Holder are doing far worse than Clinton and Reno did. Their dishonesty and incompetence have caused the deaths of at least 2 Federal Agents and hundreds and perhaps thousands of others wherever Narcos traffic. The reaction to this will not be an exploded building. It will be far more focused, most probably at Eric Holder himself, and possibly Obama as well. This will not be transient. It will remove one or both of these men from office and send someone to prison as an accessory to murder.
Something IS happening now when our rights and Constitution are being violated. This is what has changed. The old rules that prevailed since FDR no longer apply. The massive lies that have long nourished the Democratic Party are being systematically exposed. An electoral majority are now paying attention thanks largely to the new media. We have not had an opportunity like this to reverse Progressivism since 1946.
And what has changed since
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:37pm.
And what has changed since then as a result? More liberty or less? Where are the impeachment proceedings for Obama in regards to Libya? Why are states playing the silly court game in regards to Obamacare instead of rightly pursuing nullification? Where are the secessionist voices in Congress or governorships? Or the people?
Look, we have alleged conservatives supporting the TSA (hell, and Republicans created it), believing that the terrorists will use children and 90-year old women in wheelchairs; we have alleged conservatives defending and voting to make the Patriot Act permanent, with support from the populace. There is absolutely no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both parties routinely violate and ignore the Constitution without any repercussions, and a citizenry that doesn't care. A balanced budget amendment is not going to stop anything, and when it is violated, the people won't do anything and neither will the elected class.
Satchmo = Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:29pm.
Ignore this troll. Look at this troll. Saying Democrats and Republicans are the same. Insulting and lying about conservatives as though he is trolling on ConserviesSuck.com.
Ignore this troll.
We do have a great deal ....
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:58pm.
of misinformation here.
Such as?
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:24pm.
Such as?
Spoken like a true ignoramus
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 1:16pm.
"There is absolutely no difference between the Republicans and Democrats"
There is a WORLD of difference between the two parties. Even the RINOs are nothing like the core Democrat leadership. The conservative base of the Republican party are Constitutionalists mostly of the originalist or strict constructionist stripes. The RINOs are petty statists of he 1960's Democrat mold. Today's Democrats are dominated by outright Marxists and anti-capitalists with a healthy dose of race-baiters.
A test: would RINO McCain if he were President, have nominated dregs like Sotomayor or Kagan to the Supreme Court? Hell No!
There is no difference.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 1:50pm.
There is no difference.
We heard your silly assertion the first time.
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 1:53pm.
It doesn't make it any more true when you repeat it.
Rather, NL laid out some very compelling reasons for the untruth of your statement. Why don't you try refuting those?
Oh yeah...because you can't.
NL wins the argument (again).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
He won't. It is his specialty.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 2:35pm.
This is the same sissy mollycoddling troll that claims I lie about him in his collection of nearly 70 Lies and Stupid. Even when called out, dared to say just one example of what he claims is a lie. He runs like the coward he is.
Still waiting for you coward Satchmo. You claim I lied. Prove it. Anytime you want to stop acting the milksop and own up, I am waiting.
But you won't, coward is built in to your genes. It is what you are.
Hey, you guys want to hear something funny. The milquetoast troll thought I would document his collection of Lies and Stupid here and then just walk away. Trolls are not very bright at all.
The Republicans are for big
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 3:07pm.
The Republicans are for big government just as the Democrats are. There is only one thing that motivates a political party: gaining and maintaining power. That's it.
The Republican Party does not advocate the elimination of the welfare state; they do not advocate the elimination of entitlements.
A Republican created legislation effectively banning incandescent light bulbs and a Republican President signed it.
A Republican president signed TARP, saying the free market needed to be abandoned in order to save it.
Republicans - including so-called conservative Republicans and so-called Tea Party Republicans - just voted to raise the debt ceiling. Some of them voted to continue Pigford payments.
A Republican created the TSA and a Republican president signed it into existence.
A Republican president signed into existence the Department of Homeland Security that isn't concerned with security at all and never has been, nor will it ever be.
The list goes on and on and on.
You can yell, you can scream, you can stamp your feet as much as you want, but there is no difference between the parties. None whatsoever.
Pervert.... YES or NO?
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 3:45pm.
Would RINO McCain, if he were President, have nominated dregs like Sotomayor or Kagan to the Supreme Court?
Yes or no, incest approver?
- Groovy Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
You mean John McCain, author
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 5:14pm.
You mean John McCain, author of anti-first Amendment legislation bearing his name, supporter of cap and trade, supporter of amnesty, and "RINO" Republican candidate for president, nominated by the GOP membership?
There is no doubt he would fail to appoint Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court if he had the chance, and there is no doubt he would have signed legislation that runs counter to the Constitution if he were in office.
No doubt whatsoever.
Why are you not answering my direct question, Pervert?
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 5:49pm.
"You mean John McCain, author of anti-first Amendment legislation bearing his name, supporter of cap and trade, supporter of amnesty, and "RINO" Republican candidate for president, nominated by the GOP membership?"
Yes, I mean that exact John McCain.
For the last time, you doofus, will you answer my question?
Would that John McCain -- were he our president instead of Obama -- appoint Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court?
Just give me a friggin' yes or no.
Please.
- Exhausted Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Why did you ignore the rest
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 6:11pm.
Why did you ignore the rest of my answer?
Pervert
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 6:22pm.
Answer my simple question first, which you keep avoiding, and then I'll address the rest of your post.
So.... yes or no?
- Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
It wasn't your question, and
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 6:28pm.
It wasn't your question, and I already answered it: he would not have appointed Constitutionalists had he been in office.
Loser-mo
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 6:35pm.
That's not answering it, you fudging idiot. And you know it.
You lose. Bad.
The two parties are quite different, and you know it, and it's why you refuse to answer the direct question posed by NL, myself, and all of us here.
You are a loser of debates, an idiot of idiots, and a supreme pervert -- all in one.
- Shy Wins
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
It is answering. The question
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 7:20pm.
It is answering. The question was would McCain nominate dregs like S. and K. The answer is he would not appoint Constitutionalists; neither S. and K. are Constitutionalists. You seem agreed that he's a RINO, so why would you think a RINO would nominate originalists? A RINO who did all of those things I mentioned above and which you acknowledge.
He wouldn't.
The two parties are not different in any way, shape, or form. The silly question about McCain and SCOTUS picks does not support your argument nor does it refute mine.
Since you are so sure that there is a difference, tell me what you think a major difference is. Fiscal responsibility? Growing/shrinking government? Waging/not waging wars on the other side of the world against countries that are no threat to us? Tell me, what are the differences.
You go paultard. Notch it up to 11.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 7:30pm.
Play games for 4 hours refusing to answer a simple question then post 16 of your own and demand they be answered right now.
While you are answering/asking questions. Answer me this paultard ---
Who wrote the newsletters that came from Ron Paul's office with Ron Paul's name on them and filled them with nasty racist bile
In this story Ron Paul writes about “needlin” and blames packs of young black girls for spreading AIDS to white women. I could find no evidence of this “epidemic” and the article seems to have no point other than to make white people scared of Black people.
In this piece he criticizes Martin Luther King as a pro-communist philanderer and says the MLK holiday is “Hate Whitey Day.” This is in great contrast to 2008 when he told Wolf Blitzer that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes. When activists suggested naming a city after Martin Luther King Paul suggested other names such as “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” He would continue:
In another piece he blamed Black people for the riots that happened in Chicago in 1992 after the Bulls won the NBA Championship
In this article Paul uses the “carjacking” epidemic to put fear into white people. He advises them to carry guns and shoot “carjackers” illegally and then dispose of their weapons. He also refers Black people as “animals” and directly refers to his home town of Lake Jackson, Texas.
The newsletters also contained the quotes:
"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be, This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s"
Vote for Ron Paul and make the racist rich!
Turn it up to 11 Paultard.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 6:36pm.
Act the troll and refuse to answer a simple yes or no question.
Act like every Presidential election means the guy that ends up with the nomination is the perfect guy we conservatives want, not the guy we ended up being stuck with. Yep, we heart heart heart with all our soul every single Republican that has ran for President. That is how it works Paultard.
Then you act like every single Republican is the Republican we all support. You do that on a conservative site. OK paultard? You keep that up.
Then you run like the sissy you are when you get called out. Because you are a coward and a sissy. It is all you will ever be.
Say, how is ignoring me working out? Working out for you j frank wilson, 007memo, guttermouth, nwahs, every single troll evah. Working out for you real well?
You go Paultard. Act like you are having another conversation.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 6:27pm.
Did you make Ron Paul rich yet? Did you find some nads and decide to say what my exactly I lied about? Nah, still a sissy and a coward.
Vote for Ron Paul everyone!
Here is the joy that is Ron Paul. From a newsletter that had Ron Paul's name on it, came from Ron Paul's office, extensively quoted Ron Paul and had articles Ron Paul wrote ---
One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
Tell us again Paultard how nonracist the racist loon Ron Paul is.
Vote for Ron Paul everyone and make him rich!
Oh. Look the coward popped his head in.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 3:41pm.
Still waiting for you to name one thing I lied about sissy satchmo.
Look everyone. The sissy troll names a bunch of bipartisan issues/agendas/items and blames it all on the Republican party. Ain't that cute.
Hey coward, there is a difference between us and you. You call people liars when you get cold busted in a lie. We don't lie in the first place so there is nothing to get busted on.
What is it like being a coward when the only thing a stake is a few words on a webpage? Tell us sissy satchmo. Or run away again like you always do. No skin off my nose. I will be right there next time you pop up your miksop butt up again.
FAIL
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 3:49pm.
RINOs did that. Tea Partiers are trying to fight that crxp.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
The Republicans did that. The
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 5:17pm.
The Republicans did that. The Republicans nominated George W. Bush. The Republicans nominated John McCain.
The only thing the parties want is power; they are both in favor of big government. There is no difference: spend, spend, spend. There is no effort by either party to uphold the Constitution because neither party cares about upholding the Constitution.
You go sissy troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 5:27pm.
Which Republican called other posters a liar and than ran like a puppy peeing on the floor the whole way when asked exactly what the lie was.
Still waiting for you coward. Anytime you want to man up, feel free. Otherwise keep acting like 007memo AKA the coward you are.
Still waiting coward.
Or continue about your sissy ways. Republicans suck. Democrats suck. The only one that is good is Ron Paul and the Paultards, Hey everyone, vote for Ron Paul and make him rich as hell!
Buy gold. Make Ron Paul Rich!
End the Fed! Make Ron Paul Rich!
Default on our bonds. Make Ron Paul Rich!
Get rid of the dollar. Make Ron Paul Rich!
Vote for Ron Paul. Make Ron Paul Rich!
Crash the Stock Market. Make Ron Paul Rich!
Propagandizing Perv
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 2:10pm.
Want to answer NL's question, dimwit?
Would RINO McCain, if he were President, have nominated dregs like Sotomayor or Kagan to the Supreme Court?
You can ramble on in your answer with all the blather you want, but I beg you, please begin with a "yes" or "no" first.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Yeah, Shy
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 2:14pm.
It's a binary question.
*rolls eyes*.
We all are noticing Pervmo's chirping crickets here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 3:51pm.
Yes, and he/she/it is deflecting with the tired laundry list we'll just call (and this is a bit long, so I'll take a deep breath)...
Failed Liberal Talking-Points Argument That Both Parties Are The Same Because One Is Moderate and Has Been Very RINO the Past 20 Years, and the Other Is Extremely Far Left, Stealthly Pushing For Everything "Progressive"
- Shy, Hater of Incest Approving Pervs
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
FAIL
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 2:14pm.
FAIL
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Q.E.D.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 3:00pm.
Q.E.D.
"The conservative base of the
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 5:19pm.
"The conservative base of the Republican party are Constitutionalists mostly of the originalist or strict constructionist stripes."
This is such a laughable claim. Look at who Republicans choose as their candidate for president: John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, etc.
Yeah. Real conservative base, alright.
There is no difference between the two parties. You can believe in your fairy tale, but reality says different.
But But But Paultard.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 5:30pm.
Ron Paul is a Republican and your head is often up his butt, what does that make you?
Oh I forgot, a coward and a sissy troll.
Hey lying sissy coward. How is ignoring me working out? Working out for you is it 007memo?
Satchmo
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:04am.
I think what is being missed here is root cause. Just as the D's "evolved" into the nanny staters out to infantilize us, so too were the R's pulled ever left.
Pulling R's to the left, getting them to go along with the D's ideas, then using that vote/support to beat them up is transparent to me - but only because I pay attention. The surface voters don't, so it works.
That's why "but in the past so and so supported x, and now is against it" doesn't automatically turn me off. I figure it's all a big evolution, and if you learn you were mislead/didn't have the facts to make an informed decision, and now you do, it's *normal* to change your view.
So now we are in another evolution. Past is past, and is useful for charting, but we must move forward. Many of us have seen the writing on the wall, and understand what must be done.
Ronald Reagan
You've got to be kidding!
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 1:38pm.
More taxes and more spending? You've got to be kidding! Congress is having problems just increasing taxes on a very small segment of the tax payer population right now even though we're facing a "debt limit crisis." What makes you think that they'll be able to convince everyone that all taxes must be increased in order to merely continuing spending at current levels, as would be necessary under a Balanced Budget Amendment?
No, the Balanced Budget Amendment won't increase taxes. It will, however, force the government, by law, to decrease spending to match the tax revenues it collects year after year. That is a sensible thing to do.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
To be fair
Submitted by Bob K on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 5:24am.
I believe I heard Chris Wallace ask pretty much the same thing on Fox News Sunday today. The polls are correct, we do want it, but right now could it realistically pass both houses? The attempt would be taking a stand, which is something politicians have not done on anything meaningful in a long long time.
Why does Bob Schieffer hate our childrfen ...
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 5:55am.
so much that he wants to smother their future with his debt?
Libs are terrified of a balanced budget.
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 6:12am.
That would pretty much negate the redistribution of other people's wealth.
No it wouldn't. We would
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:15am.
No it wouldn't. We would still have a federal income tax. And Social Security. And Medicare.
Satchmo = Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:31pm.
Ignore this lying troll.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/po
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:59am.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/bachmann-on-cap-cap-...
Satchmo = Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:37pm.
Lew Rockwell = Loon
I can't believe I'm saying it
Submitted by russedav on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:14am.
but the old fool is sadly right about what's the point of a worthless amendment all will ignore like they have the law requiring the Senate to pass a budget they've also ignored; even a broken clock is right twice a day. People stupid enough to believe a balanced budget amendment is any more real a solution, well, I've got some great Kansas City ocean front property they'd love to buy too, or I could throw in the London bridge at no extra charge! The issue is our inherent lawlessness, which is a spiritual matter/principle, not passing another stupid law they'll also ignore in their lawlessness. This is why I'm an independent and not a "conservative" (whatever that is), because the latter's often just as daft as the "liberals" (whater they are) they claim to oppose but from whom are too often indistinguishable, and the reason for this is about which the Founders warned us, without God and His Word (the Bible) as the center and foundation of our once-true-protestant christian nation experiment in ordered liberty (i.e. excluding jewish and catholic theological error (and most of today's false-professing "protestants' who are really no different) with no Biblical understanding of the justification by faith that was the Reformation's hallmark of our Founding (see http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/5solas.htm), no matter the regrettably ignorant Deist influence of those like Franklin and Jefferson). Our nation is manifestly quickly approaching illiteracy because what little remains of our literacy owes its origins to the Biblical literacy our highly educated Founders knew from experience was essential to our survival, no matter today's stupid fools who imagine they know better while today's brightest minds would have failed 18th century college admission exams, enslaved as they are to the soviet fascist ideology that took us over in the '70s and is quickly turning academia into a cesspool of laughable incompetence as great as theirs. Only God can save us now, and considering how we've done little but raise the phallus & middle finger in His face it's a miracle He's not simply broken it off, but He certainly owes us nothing but damnation for our obsessions with vile depravity. God save us.
You're making the common
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:31am.
You're making the common mistake in believing conservative = Republican. Independent refers to political party, ie not belonging to one. Conservative and liberal reflect an ideology; "independent" does not.
I see you're still a bigot, though.
No one cares troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:36pm.
Go away like you have been told and quit harassing other users.
Schieffer
Submitted by jessieH on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:21am.
I never would have thought that Bob Schieffer could be that stupid.
Lib spending cuts will take years too ... not
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:58am.
Liberals have no interest in common-sense solutions and use the "that'll take years" excuse every time (like drilling for oil) ... except when they want you to accept their "solution" like imaginary spending cuts that'll supposedly happen years down the road ... until more crises require them to spend even more.
Why is anyone wasting time....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:14am.
watching a show with Bob Sheiffer asking questions?
Truer words have rarely been spoken!
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 2:08pm.
Watching him is like watching the neighbor's dog lick his balls.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
What a maroon!
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 1:19pm.
"The problem that we have now is right now, the government is on the verge of running out of money here, and-- and being unable to pay its bills. So why, why shouldn’t that part of it be put aside for a while and concentrate on-- on-- on doing something to get this debt ceiling either raised and the-- and the deficit down now?"
Hay, idiot, even you, yourself, claims that it'll take 10 years for spending to be reduced by an accumulated 4 trillion dollars. So, by your own reasoning, WHY should we even be discussing something that will take 10 years to accomplish? The Republicans have, several times in the past two years alone, offered plans that would immediately reduce the deficit and the debt and each and every suggestion has been rejected by Obama and his fellow Democrats. I think YOU need to ask those Democrats why THEY don't want to do anything that, you know, offers immediate results, instead of raising red-herring questions to Republicans about a Balanced Budget Amendment and what a "waste of time" that idea is.
Here's what people need to understand: Obama isn't offering ANY ideas that will actually lower the deficit one penny. No matter how much he raises taxes, those increased taxes will still be miniscule when compared to the budget *(if we ever have another actual budget, that is) and the trillion dollar yearly deficits, themselves. As ObamaCare and other Democrat programs, will, by necessity, INCREASE spending over the next few years, the deficits WILL continue to rise, each and every year, for years to come. Look for another "debt ceiling crisis" several times a year, every year, for years to come. Perpetual increases in debt, year in and year out, for years to come. THAT'S Obama's "plan." That's America's future.
Tell me again how a Balanced Budget Amendment is a waste of time?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The Dick Jurkin from Illinois
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 2:04pm.
Is a corrupt senator from one of the most corrupt states in the nation. Illinois' debt is greater than 95% of the countries IN THE WORLD.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
Because, Bob
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 3:35pm.
A balanced budget amendment, with a super majority requirement for raising taxes, likely is the only way spending ever will be brought under control. The simple fact of the matter is, all this blather about x-dollars in cuts over 10 years is a smokescreen. Short of the BBA there is nothing a present Congress can do that ties the hands of a future Congress.
Claim all the savings you want over 5, 10, 15, whatever years. Any future Congress just ignores your grand plan and spends whatever the hell its controlling party wants to spend. Your projected cuts? *POOF*
Of course, all those wonderful "increased revenue" provisions (taxes) -- you know, the ones that always take effect immediately as opposed to "out year" spending cuts -- remain in effect unless repealed by a future Congress. Yeah, right. How often have you seen that? So-called sunset clauses rarely are enforced.
Wasting Time...?
Submitted by freedom-rings on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 6:02pm.
You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. The signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone!
Bob Schieffer has some heavy snow on his screen (in his mind's eye, or the tube...it really doesn't matter). It's very difficult for him to make out the road signs.
Sound reasoning by the lone
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:39pm.
Sound reasoning by the lone voice of reason in Congress:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1894%...
So now Satchmo is---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:23pm.
spamming.
MD
The lone voice of incest
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/24/2011 - 1:32pm.
proudly endorses the lone voice of insanity in the House. It figures that he'd love the King Of Pork.
Chris Wallace was far more
Submitted by bagtree on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 5:43am.
Chris Wallace was far more biased than Bob Schieffer today. Wallace repeated the "$3 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue" Dem talking point at least 5 times while I was watching. Wallace had a Dem congressman and a Republican congressman on the show, and it was very clearly 2 against 1 with Wallace and the Dem ganging up on the Republican. In fact, a lot of the time the Dem didn't even have to say anything because Wallace was doing a better job hammering the Dem talking points than the Dem congressman was.
wholesale handbags, women handbags, wholesale purses