Author Topic: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget  (Read 1307 times)

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« on: April 18, 2011, 12:26:22 PM »

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2011, 12:40:22 PM »
Only in America can a politician get up and brag about how they stopped over paying on services
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2011, 12:43:21 PM »

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2011, 04:42:38 PM »
Thr Ryan budget would see the debt ceiling raised to 19 trillion in 5 years.  :o

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2011, 04:57:01 PM »
Thr Ryan budget would see the debt ceiling raised to 19 trillion in 5 years.  :o

SERIOUSLY?

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2011, 05:31:58 PM »
SERIOUSLY?


The plan House Republicans approved April 15, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would need a debt ceiling of at least $19.5 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2011, 05:33:09 PM »

The plan House Republicans approved April 15, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would need a debt ceiling of at least $19.5 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...aa-rating.html

Why the hell would they cut corporate tax rates then?

Jeez, they're puppets of their masters, aren't they?  Dems appeal to the food stamp base, and Repubs suck up to the rich mofos.  Geez.  No wonder the majority of repubs won't endorse the Ryan plan.

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2011, 05:56:56 PM »
Why the hell would they cut corporate tax rates then?

  No wonder the majority of repubs won't endorse the Ryan plan.

 many dems do.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2011, 06:55:27 PM »
Why the hell would they cut corporate tax rates then?

Jeez, they're puppets of their masters, aren't they?  Dems appeal to the food stamp base, and Repubs suck up to the rich mofos.  Geez.  No wonder the majority of repubs won't endorse the Ryan plan.

every single Repub in the house voted for it

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2011, 06:57:16 PM »
  As if the madoffs on the left would go for the rand paul plan? 

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2011, 07:20:30 PM »
every single Repub in the house voted for it



No they didn't and it doesn't matter much anyway, it's not binding legislation.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2011, 07:36:11 PM »

No they didn't and it doesn't matter much anyway, it's not binding legislation.

ok 4 voted against it

it's not binding but it's symbolic

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Rep. Van Hollen Explains Ryan Budget
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2011, 08:32:49 PM »
ok 4 voted against it

it's not binding but it's symbolic


I think it was more than four.