Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 09, 2011, 11:49:37 AM
-
Does anyone (who isn't a hack) really believe that we would be cutting federal spending if Democrats still controlled Congress?
Who Won the Shutdown Showdown? It Wasn't Even Close
by Carl Cameron | April 09, 2011
While Republicans wanted to cut more spending in Saturday's early morning compromise to keep the government open, they think they got the better of the deal.
Here's why: HR1 was originally to seek spending cuts of $32 billion until Tea Party conservatives insisted on more than $ 60 billion. House Speaker John Boehner won more cuts than he originally sought and got the Senate to agree to votes to defund the health care reform law and groups like the nation's largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood - once votes Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said he'd never allow to come to the floor.Back on February 3, Reid called $32 billion in cuts "extreme" and "draconian."
At a news conference New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., agreed, "I happen to think some of their cuts are extreme and go overboard. But every week they keep upping the ante and proposing extreme cuts."
Over the next decade the cuts are expected to save hundreds of billions of dollars.
The deal mandates a host of studies and audits of Obama administration policies. It also blocks additional funds for the IRS sought by the Obama administration and bans federal funding of abortion in Washington, D.C.
The history of offers on this bill goes something like this. Democrats first offered no cuts, then $4 billion, then $6.5 billion, then $33 billion, then settled at $38.5 billion.
Boehner made numerous adjustments to his offer in recent days too, but started at $32 billion, then with a Tea Party push went to $62 billion, then dropped to $40 billion, then $38.5 billion.
Democrats claimed they met Republicans halfway after the $10 billion in cuts that already passed this year were approved. They settled late Friday night at three and a half times more.
Boehner came in $8.5 billion higher than the halfway point between his high offer of $61 billion in cuts and the Democrats opening bid of zero cuts.
It was not a totally lopsided bargain. Dems have some silver linings. There were no votes on defunding the EPA or PBS and NPR. Democrats fought for and won a $2 billion cut from the Department of Defense, knocking the military appropriation for the rest of the year down to $513 billion.
But the GOP had to be able to see this as a win in the end, because it is puny compared to what they want to do next.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's 2012 budget resolution proposes cuts of $5 TRILLION in the next 10 yrs.
But the resolution is a non-binding roadmap for the committees to use as they approve tax and spending bills for next year, the resolution will never be signed into law by the president.
The next battle with consequences begins in a matter of two short weeks when the accumulated U.S. debt will be nearing it's $14 trillion legal limit. So Congress will have to vote to raise the ceiling so Uncle Sam can borrow still more money.
The administration has said it will need to be raised between April 15 and May 31 or the U.S. could default and create a new fiscal crisis of unknowable magnitude. Fiscal hawks plan to demand strict, enforceable spending caps, triggers for across the board cuts, and austerity measures in exchange for raising the debt limit.
This short-term agreement was just a beginning.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/09/who-won-shutdown-showdown-it-wasnt-even-close
-
Dems proposed 33 billion. Repubs proposed 71 billion.
Thee Dems have only 2/3 of the power in DC - and since the deficit it 3.8 trillion a year, and the Repubs got 39 billion-
The Dems effectively keps 99% of their total annual garbage bullshit spending.
So yes, BB, it's not even close. The repubs, with all their fury, shaved 1% off the deficit - 39 billion of 3.8 TRILLION. The dems keep 99% of what they want.
#winning....
-
I specially asked if anyone "who isn't a hack" believed we would be cutting spending if Democrats controlled Congress. That eliminates you. :)
-
I specially asked if anyone "who isn't a hack" believed we would be cutting spending if Democrats controlled Congress. That eliminates you. :)
a personal attack after I just showed you the dems got to keep 99% of their bullshit spending.
The repubs have 1/3 of the power and stopped 1/100 of the spending. Not even close, sounds right.
You can call 1% of spending a win. I do not. You shave half a billion off the annual welfare state and it's a good start.
Sheesh...no freaking wonder Obama dn the dems do what they want... repubs are patting thsemlves on the back for stopping 1/100 of the obama spending. "Nice work guys. Terrific results - it's beyond a win.... we freaking rock@!!!""
give it a break. Obama keeps 99% of his bullshit and the eocnomy still fails. Enjoy the win :(
-
lol
-
lol
i'm not even flaming at this point man. I'm disgusted. The repubs were screaming for 3 days about a measley 300 million for planned parenthood - they should have been scremaing about 3 TRILLION. They should have been demanding way more than 71 billion annual.
I'm watching fox and they're all cheering. jeez, guys. you stopped one percent of obama spending. If you said 6 months ago, "Obama, you're gonna get destoryed in 2010 elections, but the wost they can do is stop 1% of your massive spending, he'd probably laugh out loud and say DEAL!"
Repubs stopped 39 billion. He gets to keep spending 3.80 trillion. I'm baffled that you do'nt see that, BB. This isn't a win. This is a 1% reduction in the deficit.
PLEASE - ANYONE - tell me who "won" here. The repubs stopped 1% of obama's annual deficit. Is that what's considered a win? or, as BB said "It Wasn't Even Close"?
Did the repubs have a runaway win with 1% of his spending stopped? ???
-
Is that what's considered a win? or, as BB said "It Wasn't Even Close"?
You lying liar. Where did I say this? ::)
-
You lying liar. Where did I say this? ::)
It Wasn't Even Close
-
LOL! That's Carl Cameron's title of the article you lying liar. lol . . .
-
LOL! That's Carl Cameron's title of the article you lying liar. lol . . .
so who won the shutdown showdown, BB. State your position then :)
*methinks you don't want to, now that i've shown the repubs are dancing over stopping a pathetically small piece of obama waste".
-
ADDITIONALLY - the repubs' own stated goal was 100 billion (at least).
Does ANYONE on getbig call this a Repub win? ???
October 2010 - Republicans Promised $100 Billion In Spending Cuts - They Only Got $38 Billion
I am seeing a lot of posts about Republicans "winning" the budget battle with the Democrats. My question is how? In the 2010 election, Republicans promised $100 billion in spending cuts for 2011. No one was talking about a budget that had not even been introduced until February 2011. Yet, once they got elected and took office, Republicans immediately started walking back their promises, and said that they were only referring to President Obama's budget proposal for FY 2010-2011, which had increased from FY 2009-2010. Then, even with this expanded yardstick, Republicans did not get the $100 billion they promised.
So, the Republicans promised $100 billion in spending cuts. They only got $38 billion despite a huge majority in the House. Yet, some "Democrats" claim that the Republicans won this budget battle?
-
240 you are being an obama pelosi dildo.
Boehner was put in a horrible position because your messiah and the wretch pelosi did not pass a budget last year. He was faced with screwing over the military as the treasonous communist fuck obama threatened to veto the 6 months troop bill or make the best deal he could.
You would have been the first clown screaming about the poor govt workers had it shut down and bought in the left wing sob stories.
Stop being such a hack.
-
who 'won' yesterday, 33? dems or repubs? and why?
-
Fact: BB will never solidly state his position on anything. If you pressure him, he always ignores or dodges. Trying to pin down BB on anything is pure lol.... won't happen but it brings on giggles anyway
He can't even pick Ron Paul over Obama lolol.....
-
Fact: BB will never solidly state his position on anything. If you pressure him, he always ignores or dodges. Trying to pin down BB on anything is pure lol.... won't happen but it brings on giggles anyway
He can't even pick Ron Paul over Obama lolol.....
Ron must have been banging seven gram rocks the day he picked moderators for this board. Mr. Ozmo, if you delete my post, please delete Chavez's post as well.
*giggle
::)
-
Ron must have been banging seven gram rocks the day he picked moderators for this board. Mr. Ozmo, if you delete my post, please delete Chavez's post as well.
*giggle
::)
Did you just say giggle? ::) Only person I've ever seen say that here is Jag. How fucking many gimmicks you got going jag?
-
Did you just say giggle? ::) Only person I've ever seen do that here is Jag. How fucking many gimmicks you got going jag?
God you're a wretched dumb-ass with no reading comprehension. I was mocking your use of giggle you ridiculous pustule on the anus of humanity, but you're too stupid to even see it.
-
God you're a wretched dumb-ass with no reading comprehension. I was mocking your use of giggle you ridiculous pustule on the anus of humanity, but you're too stupid to even see it.
I've never said giggle in my life you fucking c unt.
-
won't happen but it brings on giggles anyway
brings on giggles? are you an eight year old girl or a developmentally stunted 42 year old male who giggles? Carrying on a conversation with you is impossible---someone should do the world a favor and put you on adderall.
-
oh shit, I did say giggle... fuck me... Must of been samsonjag flashback :-X Did someone fuck with my post or did I really say that shit?
If I really said that, I'm banning my ass for 30 days.
-
I just owned myself in this thread.
-
Ron must have been banging seven gram rocks the day he picked moderators for this board. Mr. Ozmo, if you delete my post, please delete Chavez's post as well.
*giggle
::)
Why Would I delete yor post?
As far as I know, if Ron was smoking rocks when it came to picking moderators he have looked for some dumb ass who'd give some scam artist $3000 towards his rolls Royce collection.
Tell you what, give me $5000 and I will put in a good word for you to Ron and maybe he'll make you a moderator too. Maybe thats already in one of your prophesies. Use Google and check. ::)
-
Why Would I delete yor post?
As far as I know, if Ron was smoking rocks when it came to picking moderators he have looked for some dumb ass who'd give some scam artist $3000 towards his rolls Royce collection.
Tell you what, give me $5000 and I will put in a good word for you to Ron and maybe he'll make you a moderator too. Maybe thats already in one of your prophesies. Use Google and check. ::)
lol at your titles "nunman" and "carlton"
I guess there's a lot of goolibels (gh15ism) in the world.
It would be impossible for Ron to top himself here, between you and CHavez. ::) In case you need it spelled out (which you obviously do): goolibels is how gh15 refers to gullibles - idiots like you.
-
It would be impossible for Ron to top himself here, between you and CHavez. ::) In case you need it spelled out (which you obviously do): goolibels is how gh15 refers to gullibles - idiots like you.
Sure thing prophet :D
Also, if being an idiot means not giving some fraud $3000 bucks, then that's me.
How's your personal Rolls collection going? At least got plastic models yet?
-
Sure thing prophet :D
Also, if being an idiot means not giving some fraud $3000 bucks, then that's me.
How's your personal Rolls collection going? At least got plastic models yet?
THe only person who didn't get the joke in that thread was you. Since it seems to be bringing you endless pleasure, run with it.
Bishop Jadeveon Clowney
-
If this was winning, I'd hate to see losing. Actually it still is losing because the amount of cuts means actual dick in the grand scene of things. Woopty Doo.
-
so who won the shutdown showdown, BB. State your position then :)
*methinks you don't want to, now that i've shown the repubs are dancing over stopping a pathetically small piece of obama waste".
Oh this is funny. :) Why did you take the title of Carl Cameron's article and make it appear as though it was a quote from me?
-
Fact: BB will never solidly state his position on anything. If you pressure him, he always ignores or dodges. Trying to pin down BB on anything is pure lol.... won't happen but it brings on giggles anyway
He can't even pick Ron Paul over Obama lolol.....
Giggles? That's pretty gay.
I see you don't get tired of being wrong. :)
-
I've never said giggle in my life you fucking c unt.
Bwahahahahahahaha!!! ;D
-
I just owned myself in this thread.
;D
(http://ownednfail.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/self_ownage.jpg)
-
Oh this is funny. :) Why did you take the title of Carl Cameron's article and make it appear as though it was a quote from me?
oh, i see. you're one of those guys that posts articles on a subject which coincidentally matches your political beliefs, you refuse to take position until the article is completely sodomized, and woah... "I never said I agree with the author".
Then, you refuse to tell us if you agree. Let's make this easy.
You agreed with the article. Then, when you learned the repubs totally stopped 1% of Obama's bullshit spending, you realized you had 2 options - the repubs have shitty standards for success, or it was an epic fail.
So, ya roll with a personal attack and refuse to answer. Sa-weeeeet!
-
oh, i see. you're one of those guys that posts articles on a subject which coincidentally matches your political beliefs, you refuse to take position until the article is completely sodomized, and woah... "I never said I agree with the author".
Then, you refuse to tell us if you agree. Let's make this easy.
You agreed with the article. Then, when you learned the repubs totally stopped 1% of Obama's bullshit spending, you realized you had 2 options - the repubs have shitty standards for success, or it was an epic fail.
So, ya roll with a personal attack and refuse to answer. Sa-weeeeet!
::)
Oh brother. I see your hard-on for a pathetic attempt at ownage has brought you down to the moron level. Repubs set out for about 60B or so, they ended up with 55B or so. IMO, not too bad.
Were you pissing and moaning about that amount before or during the debates? NO.
In fact, you claimed that the Repubs can't be blamed for at least trying:
repubs did propose 33 bil initially. then they kept moving it up.
blah, blah, blah
can't blame the repubs for trying. it's all about posing and perception now. If only the tea party members weren't on tv screaming "let's shut down the govt!"
blah
And now you want to act as though it was a colossal failure. ::)
Give it up already you waffling tool.
Class dismissed.
-
the budget ended up being 38 billion
-
the budget ended up being 38 billion
that's what I thought too.
Where did you get 58 billion?
-
Funny how you ignore obama and reid in all of this.
-
Funny how you ignore obama and reid in all of this.
two bags of shit, 6 foot and 5 foot tall, respectively.
But they won this round. even a garbage can gets a steak, I suppose.
-
that's what I thought too.
Where did you get 58 billion?
No, that's 38B from the next 6 months going forward. They've passed 6 prior continuing resolutions already cutting funds. I asked you about your numbers in the other thread because I'm not sure of exact amounts and talking in generalities.
Either way, they've CUT.
So which is it, waffle? Condemnation or applause?
You're so embarassed by this but you never once complained about the amount AND said they should be applauded for their efforts. ::)
-
eh, pat yourself on the back for that meager number. #winning.
Rand paul wanted to slice 500 billion. THAT would have been a win.
many repubs felt such a small cut made no diff in the tean year run, and they're right. we pay way more in interest than we're cutting.
-
eh, pat yourself on the back for that meager number. #winning.
Rand paul wanted to slice 500 billion. THAT would have been a win.
many repubs felt such a small cut made no diff in the tean year run, and they're right. we pay way more in interest than we're cutting.
We all know this was showboating over pennies. And it's a small victory.
But you trying to act as though your "disgusted" and blah, blah, blah, when you never once complained about the amounts, and even applauded the attempt is just sheer kneepadding.
Next time you're blowing your Messiah, let him know how disgusted over the spending you are.
-
see, i dont really blow obama on this - i called him and reid 6 and 5 foot tall bags of shit above. i mean, way more brutal than others on this thread.
still, you have your opinion on it. but i do think cutting 1% off the 3.8 trillion is nothing to celebrate. Ron Paul's 500 B would have been a win.
-
Bachmann: $39 billion in cuts is a 'disappointment'
Source: Politico
On Friday Speaker of the House John Boehner told reporters he's a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. Tonight, Rep. Michele Bachmann reveals she's not so much.
Bachmann voted against a short-term bill to keep the government running while a negotiated budget package moves through Congress. Bachmann says the larger deal, which includes $39 billion in spending cuts, and has garnered wide support among the Republican Conference, is a "disappointment."
“The deal that was reached tonight is a disappointment for me and for millions of Americans who expected $100 billion in cuts, who wanted to make sure their tax dollars stopped flowing to the nation’s largest abortion provider, and who wanted us to defund ObamaCare," Bachmann said in a release. "Instead, we’ve been asked to settle for $39 billion in cuts, even as we continue to fund Planned Parenthood and the implementation of ObamaCare. Sadly, we’re missing the mandate given us by voters last November, and for that reason I voted against the Continuing Resolution.”
-
The Repubs won
They got the Bush tax cuts extended which added 70 Billion to this years deficit while at the same time pretending to the the fiscal hawks who were so concerned about the money (and not ideology) that the brought the country to the brink of a shutdown over 300 million in funding for Planned Parenthood
-
Jesus, 240 is getting beaten all over this board on this budget stuff. First Gigantor exposes him for playing the class-warfare game and now Skip drops the hammer. That was brutal.
Hypocrite exposed! 8)
-
see, i dont really blow obama on this - i called him and reid 6 and 5 foot tall bags of shit above. i mean, way more brutal than others on this thread.
still, you have your opinion on it. but i do think cutting 1% off the 3.8 trillion is nothing to celebrate. Ron Paul's 500 B would have been a win.
Ron or Rand?
Rand's budget is never going to pass (at least not with the Senate and Presidency controlled by the Dems. It's a waste of time to even harp on it or even act as though it's a viable victory to achieve.
In this political atmosphere, small, incremental change is the only realistically achievable victory.
-
THe only person who didn't get the joke in that thread was you. Since it seems to be bringing you endless pleasure, run with it.
Bishop Jadeveon Clowney
So you are not a prophet? Ok ::)
-
Ron or Rand?
Rand's budget is never going to pass (at least not with the Senate and Presidency controlled by the Dems. It's a waste of time to even harp on it or even act as though it's a viable victory to achieve.
In this political atmosphere, small, incremental change is the only realistically achievable victory.
It's hilarious how 240 always conveniently ignores the fact that the Dems laid out their plan months ago and that I'd have a better chance of finding a billion dollars on the street than the Repubs did of getting a Rand budget past a senate and Messiah that would rather spend $500 billion. ::)
The guy's a pathetically boring troll these days.
-
Also to note:
Federal Debt Jumped $54.1 Billion in 8 Days Preceding Obama-Boehner Deal to Cut $38.5 Billion for Rest of Year
(CNS) — The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September.
The debt was $14.2101 trillion on March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and $14.2642 on April 7.
Since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increase by $653.4 billion.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-jumped-54-billion-8-days-preceding
And these fucking dems were crying over a mere $60 billion in cuts. They truly are destroying this country. ::)
-
And these fucking dems were crying over a mere $60 billion in cuts. They truly are destroying this country. ::)
Exactly. And when I started a thread here asking the so-called "fiscally responsible" dems what the problem was.....I heard crickets...
-
Exactly. And when I started a thread here asking the so-called "fiscally responsible" dems what the problem was.....I heard crickets...
Of course. Have you seen their posts? 99% of them are personal insults and the other 1% consists of copy/pasting MSNBC and Comedy Central clips from the sidebar of DU.
-
So you are not a prophet? Ok ::)
Whether I am a prophet or not is debatable. What's not is that you're an idiot. :)
Bishop Clowney
-
Whether I am a prophet or not is debatable. What's not is that you're an idiot. :)
Bishop Clowney
So now are you denying you are a prophet or not?
-
Any politician (Republican or Democrat) who voted in favor of extending the Bush Tax cuts forfeited any credibility regarding the deficit
-
How Impacting were the tax cuts?
-
How Impacting were the tax cuts?
According to GigantorX from another thread the cost this year is 70 billion
Meanwhile Repubs claimed to be so concerned about the deficit that they were willing to shut down the government over a paltry 300 million to Planned Parenthood
-
Did it spur the economy as advertised?
-
Did it spur the economy as advertised?
Have the trillions Obama and the Dems blown since taking office spurred the economy as advertised? ???
The Obama regime and cronies have managed to add $55 billion to the budget in a mere 8 days. Meanwhile, Straw Man (ironic that he's speaking about credibility), is crying about some tax cuts costing $70 billion for a year. Ha ha ha.
Dems = the party that cries about a mere $60 billion in cuts out of $1+ trillion. Astoundingly pathetic.
-
I donno man, we seem so fucked, we should cut anything we can for while.
-
Did it spur the economy as advertised?
Well it's only been in effect (since the extension) for about 90 days but If the past is any inidication I wouldn't expect much:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/25/carolyn-maloney/congresswoman-says-democratic-presidents-create-mo/
Before we provide the final totals, let's run down how each president did. Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president:
Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year
-
Meanwhile Repubs claimed to be so concerned about the deficit that they were willing to shut down the government over a paltry 300 million to Planned Parenthood
Uh, that cuts both ways. Amazing you can't see it...oh wait. ::)
-
Well it's only been in effect (since the extension) for about 90 days but If the past is any inidication I wouldn't expect much:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/25/carolyn-maloney/congresswoman-says-democratic-presidents-create-mo/
Before we provide the final totals, let's run down how each president did. Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president:
Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year
::)
Uh, that cuts both ways. Amazing you can't see it...oh wait. ::)
Hahahaha!
The Dems would rather fund their abortion machine than pay the soldiers. Says a lot. :-\
-
::)
Hahahaha!
The Dems would rather fund their abortion machine than pay the soldiers. Says a lot. :-\
what makes you believe that nonsense?
-
what makes you believe that nonsense?
What makes you believe otherwise?
-
What Straw is too stupid to realize is that the 3% INCREASE was almost entirely in the PUBLIC sector and was the result of an artificial infusion of tax payer money ( the stimulus) which led to an embarassing per job created figure totaling more than 200k EACH.
In addition, there were Census jobs which I'm sure Osama and his band of morons counted as economic growth-- "jobs created".
So follow me Straw, we spent trillions our own money to create unnecessary burecratic public jobs and then we paid the resulting workers with our own money. That's a great way to spur an economic recovery ::)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2009-stimulus-bill-cost-228055-per-job-saved-or-created/
-
What makes you believe otherwise?
simple
I can say the exact same thing about the Repubs
they refused to pay the military unless they got an ideological win that would have no meaningful effect on the deficit (the thing they claimed to care so much about in the first place except they added 70 billion to it this year themselves)
-
What Straw is too stupid to realize is that the 3% INCREASE was almost entirely in the PUBLIC sector and was the result of an artificial infusion of tax payer money ( the stimulus) which led to an embarassing per job created grand total of more than 150k per job created. In addition, there were Census jobs which I'm sure Osama and his band of morons counted as economic growth-- "jobs created".
So follow me Straw, we spent trillions our own money to create unnecessary burecratic public jobs and then we paid the resulting workers with our own money. That's a great way to spur an economic recovery ::)
Don't hit him with facts! It's easier for him to stick to the far-leftist list of talking points. Remember: when in doubt, lie and fearmonger.
-
What Straw is too stupid to realize is that the 3% INCREASE was almost entirely in the PUBLIC sector and was the result of an artificial infusion of tax payer money ( the stimulus) which led to an embarassing per job created figure totaling more than 200k EACH.
In addition, there were Census jobs which I'm sure Osama and his band of morons counted as economic growth-- "jobs created".
So follow me Straw, we spent trillions our own money to create unnecessary burecratic public jobs and then we paid the resulting workers with our own money. That's a great way to spur an economic recovery ::)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2009-stimulus-bill-cost-228055-per-job-saved-or-created/
here are some more facts for you
we borrowed (added to the debt) 2.5 trillion to pay for the Bush Tax cuts and during the Bush administration net total employment went up by 1.08 million jobs. Under Bush, private employment shrank by 673,000 jobs, federal employment grew by 50,000 jobs, and government employment grew by 1,753,000 jobs.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249516/job-creation-bush-vs-obama-veronique-de-rugy
so if the tax cuts are supposed to spur job growth it's coming at a cost of around 2,500,000 per job (and those were government jobs - the most evil kind)
Bush also grew government sector jobs (expanded the government payroll) faster than private sector jobs, more than any other POTUS since WW2
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09charts.html
-
A) This is not about GW Bush-- how many fucking years does the swindler in Chief need to be in office before you retards come to grips with the fact that GW is not the prez anymore?
B) Stupidity by a former president is not an excuse for the stupidity of a current President.
C) Bush was in office 8 years-- The Bush Tax cuts were not enacted during a so called economic recovery and the two year expansion was not an "extension". Tax rates merely remained the same. THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE NOT ENACTED AS A STIMULUS PACKAGE.
D) The expansion of the federal government was almost exclusively the direct result of expanding counter terrorism measures and agencies such as DHS and the TSA in response to 911. Also, we entered two wars under Bush. And again moron, this was not done to improve the economy, it was for national security reasons.
E) I could go on forever, but I'll stop here.
-
Well it's only been in effect (since the extension) for about 90 days but If the past is any inidication I wouldn't expect much:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/25/carolyn-maloney/congresswoman-says-democratic-presidents-create-mo/
Before we provide the final totals, let's run down how each president did. Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president:
Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year
Ok. What kind of jobs were "created"? What did they pay? Did they provide benefits? Where they full time? Were they Govt or Private sector jobs? What specific sectors were they in?
Without addressing those questions the numbers you provide are meaningless.
-
A) This is not about GW Bush-- how many fucking years does the swindler in Chief need to be in office before you retards come to grips with the fact that GW is not the prez anymore?
B) Stupidity by a former president is not an excuse for the stupidity of a current President.
C) Bush was in office 8 years-- The Bush Tax cuts were not enacted during a so called economic recovery and the two year expansion was not an "extension". Tax rates merely remained the same. THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE NOT ENACTED AS A STIMULUS PACKAGE.
D) The expansion of the federal government was almost exclusively the direct result of expanding counter terrorism measures and agencies such as DHS and the TSA in response to 911. Also, we entered two wars under Bush. And again moron, this was not done to improve the economy, it was for national security reasons.
E) I could go on forever, but I'll stop here.
Befofe you piped in (starting with an insult as usual) Ozmo and I were talking about the cost of the Bush Tax cuts, job creation, the defcit. You piped in about Obama's jobs being all public sector which is why I responded not only about the lack of job growth under Bush and how his tax cuts were a very very expensive and ineffective way to create jobs as well as the fact that all of the jobs he created were an expansion of the government (something Repubs and Teabaggers supposedly hate). Regardin DHS, it's a complete waste of money and wasnt' necessary in the first place. Bush had all the intelligence and just chose to ingore it.
I could go on forever but I'll stop here
-
How to take a stance on a partisan issue, the "I voted for Bob Barr" way:
Look, no one wants to see the repubs win more than I do, but they clearly wanted everyone's mother to die at Christmas dinner on this one.
I hate the dems, but they were literally a jesus led unicorn with this piece of legislature.
The repubs could have easily stopped using the frozen bodies of stolen children to club baby seals for a few minutes to make the dems look less wholesome and beautiful today if they had their act together. If that's what happened, I would have been the first person to praise Boehner and crew here on getbig.
But that's not what happened. I'll admit they've been wrong in the past, but on this issue no one can deny that the dems were the most perfect union of human souls that could ever exist.
-
LOL! Brilliant!
-
LOL! Brilliant!
Well, shit. It ruins it when you say that.
-
looks like charlie sheen in 5 years
i thought he was going to start crying at the end of the video, then i realized this man isn't speaker of the house.
-
looks like charlie sheen in 5 years
i thought he was going to start crying at the end of the video, then i realized this man isn't speaker of the house.
Yet.
-
Yet.
good point. In a deep dark corner of Boehnner's Cave sits the tea party darling to replace him next time elections roll around.
-
Thanks for trying to answer Straw, so were the tax cuts beneficial? In hindsight should we have continued them? Why or why not.
Anyone.
From the point they were extended under Obama.
Did they create jobs? What kind of jobs did they create? Did the jobs they create justify the cost?
-
Thanks for trying to answer Straw, so were the tax cuts beneficial? In hindsight should we have continued them? Why or why not.
Anyone.
Did they create jobs? What kind of jobs did they create? Did the jobs they create justify the cost?
we can't measure them, but we know we needed them cause FOX said the world ends without them.
Sure, cutting the bush tax cuts would have instantly dropped our deficit by what, half? Details, mang.
-
Wasn't there a big argument to extend them? Well, in retrospect was that a good idea?
-
Yes. Can you imagine people now taking home less money now that bama and bernakes' spending spree induced inflation is starting to explode?
-
Yes. Can you imagine people now taking home less money now that bama and bernakes' spending spree induced inflation is starting to explode?
Who did the cuts really effect?
-
I thought a compromise - extend the cuts for people making 250 to 1 mil.... then telling people making over a million "Look, you had a good ten years... let's go back to the clinton levels".
These people screaming about the need for people making 10 mil a year to avoid losing their tax cuts = Morons marching on the deck of the titanic for iceberg's rights, as the damn boat sank.
-
we can't measure them, but we know we needed them cause FOX said the world ends without them.
Sure, cutting the bush tax cuts would have instantly dropped our deficit by what, half? Details, mang.
Hahaha. Where do you come up with this shit? After the beating you took from gigantor and skip one would think that you would avoid these budget threads as it was made quite clear that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Waah, waah, Fox news, waah, waah! ::)
Yes. Can you imagine people now taking home less money now that bama and bernakes' spending spree induced inflation is starting to explode?
Inflation? Nothing to worry about. $4/gal gas? Not a problem. Nevermind that people were crying bloody murder when gas prices rose under Bush.
-
Inflation? Nothing to worry about. $4/gal gas? Not a problem. Nevermind that people were crying bloody murder when gas prices rose under Bush.
If I were driving like I did when Bush was in office, I'd be PISSED, and I only drove like 15 miles a day at the time... How about these people who live 30 miles from work or farther and drive almost 70+ miles a day.
My biggest problem is that the answer that I always hear from Obama is "Buy a newer more efficient car"... Well, those cars cost a fuckton of money and aren't THAT much more efficient.
My 5.0 was getting around 20 miles to the gallon 16 years ago... Now, the GT gets like 11 gallons more... yet the car is also 10 grand more than it was 16 years ago.
People who are driving cars from the mid 90s aren't doing it because they love the car, they do it because they can't afford a new fucking car.
I fucking hate that answer that Obama gives...
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\
-
Skip is 100% right. THe Republicans are winning. They are cutting spending and at the same time exposing the Dems for thier lack of seriousness in cutting spending - the best of both worlds. People here know that liberals annoy me, but lately I have become very annoyed by conservative talk show hosts who criticise Bohner for "caving in". I wonder if these people ever stop to put themselves in the politicians shoes and consider the consequences of what they want the Republicans to do. I agree with these people for the most part on ideology, but I think sometimes they live in this politically perfect fictional world where the majority of the people are conservative, and that just isnt the case.
-
Befofe you piped in (starting with an insult as usual) Ozmo and I were talking about the cost of the Bush Tax cuts, job creation, the defcit. You piped in about Obama's jobs being all public sector which is why I responded not only about the lack of job growth under Bush and how his tax cuts were a very very expensive and ineffective way to create jobs as well as the fact that all of the jobs he created were an expansion of the government (something Repubs and Teabaggers supposedly hate). Regardin DHS, it's a complete waste of money and wasnt' necessary in the first place. Bush had all the intelligence and just chose to ingore it.
I could go on forever but I'll stop here
::)
Does Rachel Maddow have her hand up your ass? You are basically a left wing talking point puppet/ parrot. Do you have a single idea that you have ever come up with on your own? Before you answer, better make sure you check MSNBC to see if the host who is on will give you permission.
-
we can't measure them, but we know we needed them cause FOX said the world ends without them.
Sure, cutting the bush tax cuts would have instantly dropped our deficit by what, half? Details, mang.
We've been over this. The only "Tax Cut" (WHICH AGAIN, WAS AN EXTENSION OF PREVIOUS RATES) was being touted as "adding to the deficit" at a rate of 70 billion per year. All total the whole "Tax Cut Extension" would "cost" 450 billion with the deficit of of 1.7 trillion.
It's all projections though. Tax cuts don't add to the deficit, spending does. And there is no guarantee that anywhere close to those revenues would have actually been collected. Our tax system is fucked up, inefficient and costly but the problem isn't that the govt. isn't extorting the citizenry enough, it's the fact that the govt. spends to much.
I find it funny that some on this board get driven into a frenzied rage when "tax cuts for the rich" are brought up but say nothing about the fact that 48% (and growing) of this nation pay no income taxes at the end of the day and many actually pay nothing and get money from the government.
Top 5% pay 50% of all income taxes = treason and horrible they should pay more!
48% pay nothing and get services/cash from government = no problem at all the more the merrier.
-
The GOP's winning streak
By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
April 10, 2011 07:05 AM EDT
www.politico.com
Here’s the unvarnished pitch House Speaker John Boehner would love to make to his conservative critics if he could just let it fly: “You are winning, and winning decisively. So stop your whining.”
And here’s the unvarnished truth about that pitch: Boehner would be spot on.
The winners and losers of this weekend’s 11th-hour budget deal may be in dispute. But the broader trajectory of politics, stretching back to the spring of 2009, is not. The Republican — and, yes, the tea party — agenda is not only ascendant, it’s driving the debate over reshaping government at every level.
Jubilant top Republicans told POLITICO in interviews that they plan to use the momentum from the budget fight to take a hard line with President Barack Obama in the fiscal fights of the months ahead. And the GOP leaders said they believe their new advantage in the national debate will lift the party’s presidential candidates — none of whom right now looks capable of beating Obama.
“The debate is now on our side of the field,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said from Sioux Falls. “This is just the opening act. But these upcoming debates are not going to be about whether we’re going to reduce the cost and size of government, but how much. That’s very good ground for Republicans to fight on.”
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and a 2012 presidential hopeful, told us: “When you see [Democratic governors] Jerry Brown [of California] and you see Andrew Cuomo [of New York] wrestling with spending, and inevitably wrestling with the unions who elect them, you know you’re in a different era.”
Obama himself seems to be responding to the GOP's push, with his senior adviser David Plouffe announcing Sunday that the president will deliver a major speech Wednesday laying out a more aggressive path for deficit reduction — including reform of entitlements, particularly Medicare and Medicaid.
Make no mistake, Obama did pretty well last week during the budget fight. Like any good politician, he’s sure to take credit for cutting spending, too, even though he fought it much of the way. It’s no accident he said the deal marked the biggest annual spending cut in history — not once, but twice, in four minutes of remarks after the agreement was reached. And the Democrats’ relentless criticism of the GOP’s effort to make gains on social issues – abortion in particular – may yet yield political dividends.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote in a Saturday blog post: “These are real cuts that will save taxpayers money and have a real impact. Many will be painful, and are to programs that we support, but the fiscal situation is such that we have to act.”
And a senior Democrat involved in the conversations argues: "The GOP got a high number, but they utterly failed at their real objective —overturning the Obama agenda. On health care, clean air, women's health and education — and every other core area of the Obama administration — they failed and failed miserably to turn back the clock. Boehner blinked."
But even Democrats recognize Republicans have the offensive on the spending issue — that they own it in a way Obama simply can’t. A top Democratic official, insisting on anonymity in order to be candid, said: “The fundamental problem of the whole process is Democrats have zero ability to describe what our view of government really is. So basically all we do is defend the status quo against attacks from the right-wing fringe of the GOP.”
Look at the facts:
—The $40 billion in cuts was not only historically high, it was more than Boehner himself wanted to push for a few short months ago.
—Earmarks, which many thought would never go away, are now taboo - even to earmark addicts like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who reluctantly gave them up after the 2010 election.
—Deficits are all the rage on Capitol Hill, and will be until Congress wends its way through the debt limit fight and the next budget. The word “deficit” appeared in 470 documents in the Congressional Record between the beginning of January and the end of March, more than in any session’s opening since 1995, according to a review by POLITICO. And Americans listened: Asked by Gallup to identify the most important problem facing the nation, 13 percent said “federal debt” in March of this year, up from 8 percent a year ago.
—The broader budget debate is now fought on the tea party’s terms: It’s not whether to reduce government, it’s by how much. This helps explain why serious centrist commentators and even some liberals PRAISED a $6 trillion budget cut plan proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Remember how a similar plan was received two years ago?
—Thanks to a pickup of 675 legislative seats in 2010 - many because of these budget principles — the most sweeping work is getting done in states. Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana are now working, real-time labs for discovering how much the party can cut government - without cutting off the support of independents. A GOP senator told us the party studies what happens in these state showdowns to test the limits of what will work here. One early finding: Many think Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) went too far, too fast by gutting union power without first educating the public.
—The real fight over spending erupted in late spring of 2009, and consider the results: The GOP won the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009; the Scott Brown Senate race in Massachusetts in early 2010; then won back the House, picked up Senate seats and captured the most state legislative seats in a single year since Watergate — all in November of last year.
“The country knows it’s in serious trouble,” Gingrich said. “You see this with Scott Walker, you see it with John Kasich [in Ohio], you see it with Rick Scott [in Florida], you see it with Chris Christie [in New Jersey], you see it with Mitch Daniels [in Indiana].”
House Republican leadership aides, emboldened by the outcome of this budget fight, told us they plan to force more spending cuts, plus budget reforms, as the price of Republican votes to support the administration on raising the nation’s debt limit – a debate expected to take place in May and June, and possibly backing up into July.
The aides argue that the GOP is the minority party in Washington, since Democrats control the White House and the Senate. So they said they will have to be very strategic and continue focusing on the big picture of the nation’s debt problem, rather than getting bogged down in fights over individual cuts.
“The mileposts ahead for Congress are all fiscal debates, and that’s going to help Republicans,” said GOP strategist Kevin Madden, a consultant to 2012 hopeful Mitt Romney. “Debates about spending cuts and the debt limit help us reinforce the reform brand.”
Jamal Simmons, a top Democratic strategist, said it’s no longer credible for his party to argue against spending cuts, but added: “The conversation became about a number – whether to cut $33 billion or $40 billion. Democrats need to get the conversation back to what to cut, and how to preserve priorities. … Republicans made a big mistake with the Planned Parenthood/abortion fight, because it got the conversation back onto values. Once the discussion began to move away from numbers, you could feel the ground beneath the GOP erode.”
Simmons said Obama now should “give another back-to-business speech after this fight, and get people to re-focus on his priorities” from the State of the Union address – education, environment, innovation and infrastructure.
The question that will determine how long this moment lasts for the GOP seems simple: will they overreach? The public clearly wants smaller government but clearly wants it done in a restrained and cooperative way. Some Democrats, for instance, are eager to take on Ryan’s proposal for restructuring (read: cutting) Medicare.
“If you overreach too far, you can get a backlash,” Thune cautioned. “We have to sound reasonable. But the reason the president moved so far is that he has recognized that the government has gotten much, much larger, and that most independents in the country are very uncomfortable with that.”
The tea party is restless: Will they feel compelled not to surrender next time - in the debt limit fight - because some will on this one?
Karl Rove said he worries about criticism that this weekend’s deal was inadequate. Some conservatives may say, “We’re talking about cutting billions, and we need to be cutting trillions.”
“We will create opportunities to cut trillions,” Rove said. “But you need to start with the smaller steps available now. I talked to a couple of members of the tea party faction in the House, and they went out of their way to say that Boehner has done a really good job of keeping us informed, he’s doing the best he can, and we’ve told him we were with him.”
Gingrich also said that Boehner’s calm demeanor fits the moment, noting that the House Republican message has “been on jobs and spending for about a year and a half now.”
“Democrats try to pull them off on Defense of Marriage [Act], or they try to pull them off on immigration,” Gingrich said. “Boehner just ignores them: ‘Our future is bound up in Paul Ryan and the budget, the size of government, getting the economy growing again.’ … They have been very methodical about: Where are the jobs? And let’s cut spending.”
The broader political concern for Republicans is this: Can they prevent Obama from claiming credit for the new frugal spirit? Obama wants to, and has more tools than his adversaries.
Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor and 2012 presidential candidate, said by phone from San Jose, Calif., that fiscal arguments have given the party a broader appeal as more people “became aware and educated that it’s not just a matter of political rhetoric – it’s a matter of sixth-grade math.”
“We are in for a sustained period of structural reform,” Pawlenty said. “The country is prepared for the change. The public deserves the truth. They can handle the truth. … Given how deep the hole is, I’m not worried about overreach. I think we should try to be as bold and courageous as the American people will tolerate, and we need to lead them there.”
-
The Tea Party's First Victory
Obama opposes spending cuts right up to the time he calls them historic..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704390604576253281066078842.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#
This is getting to be a habit. President Obama ferociously resists tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts—right up to the moment he strikes a deal with Republicans and hails the tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts as his idea. What a difference an election makes.
This is the larger political meaning of Friday's last minute budget deal for fiscal 2011 that averted a government shutdown. Mr. Obama has now agreed to a pair of tax cut and spending deals that repudiate his core economic philosophy and his agenda of the last two years—and has then hailed both as great achievements. Republicans in Washington have reversed the nation's fiscal debate and are slowly repairing the harm done since the Nancy Pelosi Congress began to set the direction of government in 2007.
***
Yes, we know, $39 billion in spending cuts for 2011 is less than the $61 billion passed by the House and shrinks the overall federal budget by only a little more than 1%. The compromise also doesn't repeal ObamaCare, kill the EPA's anticarbon rules, defund Planned Parenthood, reform the entitlement state, or part the Red Sea.
On the other hand, the Obama-Pelosi Leviathan wasn't built in a day, and it won't be cut down to size in one budget. Especially not in a fiscal year that only has six months left and with Democrats running the Senate and White House. Friday's deal cuts more spending in any single year than we can remember, $78 billion more than President Obama first proposed. Domestic discretionary spending grew by 6% in 2008, 11% in 2009 and 14% in 2010, but this year will fall by 4%. That's no small reversal.
The budget does this while holding the line against defense cuts that Democrats wanted and restoring the school voucher program for Washington, D.C. for thousands of poor children. Tom DeLay—the talk radio hero when he ran the House—never passed a budget close to this good.
The political gains are also considerable. When Mr. Obama introduced his 2012 budget in February, he proposed more spending on his priorities in return for essentially no cuts. Two months later, the debate is entirely about how much spending to cut and which part of government to reform. Democrats were forced to play defense nearly across the board, obliged to defend programs (National Public Radio) that were once thought to be untouchable shrines of modern liberalism.
Republicans also showed they are able to make the compromises required to govern. We realize that "governing" can often be an excuse for incumbent self-interest. But this early show of political maturity will demonstrate to independents that the freshmen and tea party Republicans they elected in November aren't the yahoos of media lore. A government shutdown over a spending difference of $7 billion and some policy riders would have made the GOP look reckless for little return.
Now the battle moves to the debt ceiling increase and Paul Ryan's new 2012 budget later this year, and there are lessons from this fight to keep in mind. One is to focus on spending and budget issues, not extraneous policy fights. Republicans have the advantage when they are talking about the overall level of spending and ways to control it. They lose that edge when the debate veers off into a battle over social issues.
We certainly agree that, amid a $1.5 trillion deficit, taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is preposterous. Let George Soros or Peter Lewis spend their private fortunes to support the group's abortion counseling. But Mr. Boehner was wise to drop the provision on Friday rather than let Mr. Obama portray a shutdown as a fight over abortion rights. If Republicans want to win this fight in the coming months, they need to convince voters that Planned Parenthood funding is a low fiscal priority, not make it seem as if they want to use the budget to stage a cultural brawl.
This point is especially crucial in the looming showdown over increasing the debt limit. Mr. Obama will marshal a parade of Wall Street and Federal Reserve worthies predicting Armageddon if the debt limit isn't raised as early as mid-May. Republicans will play into his hands of they seek to load up any debt limit increase with policies unrelated to spending and debt reduction.
The best advice we've heard is from former Senator Phil Gramm, who says Republicans should agree that families and nations should always honor their debts. But in doing so they should also make sure they won't pile up new debt. For a family, that means cutting up the credit cards. For Congress, it means passing budget reforms that impose hard and enforceable limits on new spending and debt.
We are not talking here about that hardy perennial, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that would easily become a lever for Democrats to push for higher taxes. Far better would be statutory limits on spending increases and debt as a share of GDP, sequesters that automatically cut spending if Congress exceeds those limits, supermajority rules for replacing those limits, and revisions of the budget baseline so that each year's budget begins at last year's spending levels, not with automatic increases.
This is the kind of reform the public will understand is directly related to the debt limit, and one that Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama will find hard to oppose. Republicans should waste no time starting to explain their debt-limit terms, so voters also understand the GOP isn't toying with default as a political ploy.
***
One of the ironies of Friday's budget deal is that it is being criticized both by Ms. Pelosi and some conservative Republicans. We can understand Ms. Pelosi's angst. But conservatives are misguided if they think they could have done much better than Mr. Boehner, or that a shutdown would have helped their cause. Republicans need to stay united for the bigger fights to come this year, and for now they and the tea party can take credit for spending cuts that even Mr. Obama feels politically obliged to sell as historic.
-
-
oh shit, I did say giggle... fuck me... Must of been samsonjag flashback :-X Did someone fuck with my post or did I really say that shit?
If I really said that, I'm banning my ass for 30 days.
LOL
Hugo, I'm not laughing at you. Your post is just too funny! ;D
-
Dems proposed 33 billion. Repubs proposed 71 billion.
Thee Dems have only 2/3 of the power in DC - and since the deficit it 3.8 trillion a year, and the Repubs got 39 billion-
The Dems effectively keps 99% of their total annual garbage bullshit spending.
So yes, BB, it's not even close. The repubs, with all their fury, shaved 1% off the deficit - 39 billion of 3.8 TRILLION. The dems keep 99% of what they want.
#winning....
Damn 240.. bring it
-
Damn 240.. bring it
Yeah, Obama threatening to screw the military in order so that he could pay for abortions played no part. ::) ::) ::)
Bro- you are a joke. Go back to bed.
-
Damn 240.. bring it
240 bringing it? The dude's the ultimate hypocrite. He's chastising the Repubs for only getting $40 billion cut while also chastising Ryan's proposal to cut TRILLIONS. That spells "hypocrite" in my book.
Not only that, but he tried to play the class-warfare propaganda angle and was subsequently destroyed by gigantor. He's not bringing anything but comedic value.
-
Yeah, Obama threatening to screw the military in order so that he could pay for abortions played no part. ::) ::) ::)
Bro- you are a joke. Go back to bed.
LOL.. seriously so the GOP was sparing the military.. i dont see how, if their cuts were like double of Dems.
I know you like to gloss over facts and generalize (for effect) but cmon man..even if what you were saying was true, how much money is spent on abortion for real. Now how much is spent on military...lol.. fuckin kid you are
WASHINGTON – Republicans portray Planned Parenthood as primarily focused on performing abortions and — intentionally or not — using American taxpayer dollars to do it.
Not so, say Democrats who counter that the group's 800-plus health centers nationwide provide an array of services, from screenings for cancer to testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Abortion is just one of many procedures, and the law bars Planned Parenthood from using tax money for it.
In the budget maelstrom Friday stood Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a 90-year-old organization now part of a decades-long congressional battle over abortion. Republicans wanted any legislation keeping the government operating to bar federal dollars for Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortions. They wanted to distribute the money to the states.
"The country is broke and the vast majority of Americans don't want tax dollars to take the life of unborn children," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio., chairman of Republican Study Committee, told reporters in a conference call.
Giving its version, Planned Parenthood said it performed about 330,000 abortions last year, 3 percent of its total health care services. The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams and some 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases..
The organization said it receives $363 million in federal funds, getting its money from both the Title X program and Medicaid. Title X provides grants for family planning and related health services under a law signed by Republican President Richard M. Nixon in December 1970.
Of the Title X money, Planned Parenthood gets about $70 million, some 25 percent of the $317 million in Title X spending. The organization's annual budget is $1.1 billion and includes individual donations.
Federal law bars Planned Parenthood from using tax dollars for abortion. In 1976, three years after the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which bars the use of taxpayer funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
-
The GOP passed a 6month military spending bill to take the military thing off the table. Your boy wonderbama theatened to veto it hoping he could cause a shutdown and demogogue the issue.
And again - remind me again why Bama/Reid/Pelosi did not pass a budget last year?
-
The GOP passed a 6month military spending bill to take the military thing off the table. Your boy wonderbama theatened to veto it hoping he could cause a shutdown and demogogue the issue.
And again - remind me again why Bama/Reid/Pelosi did not pass a budget last year?
Remind me again. What would you cut...as i remember.. you said accross the board.
Also.. where do you get the abortion thing from... kind of a factless talking point
-
Didn't the Democrats want $0 to be cut. Funny how Republicans are called losers for not getting everything they wanted. Democrats at the beginning didn't want to cut anything and when they finally came up with a number it was less than $10 billion.
Democrats are going to get steamrolled. It probably won't happen overnight. But, a lot of legislations that Dems passed under Obama (including Obamacare) before the Reps gained the House will eventually be defunded or repealed.
-
Remind me again. What would you cut...as i remember.. you said accross the board.
Also.. where do you get the abortion thing from... kind of a factless talking point
Across the board - no one spared. Let the agencies have the choice have to deal with a 10% less budget every year.
-
;D
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4809049
-
;D
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4809049
Haha, wow. Those people make guys like Straw Man and blacken look somewhat intelligent. :-X
-
Across the board - no one spared. Let the agencies have the choice have to deal with a 10% less budget every year.
even military?
-
even military?
Yes. its the only fair way. I hate the thought of cutting military - but the only fair way is to tell everyone "this year yu have $10 to spend - next year $9, figure out hw to get it done"
Its not fair since the most deserving get fucked and least deserving get a benefit -but its theonly way no one can say they are being unfaily targeted.
were it up to me - I would cut off all social assistance altogether and let the welfare vermin die in the streets wo hestitation, but that is not going to happen since those animals will burn the nation down first.
-
Shut the People Down (Obama planned to make shutdown worse than it had to be!)
The American Spectator ^ | April 11, 2011 | The Prowler
STANDOFF CYNICISM
No one can say that President Barack Obama and his administration weren't thinking of the American people during the budget standoff with Republicans. Their inconvenience was very much on his mind.
According to White House sources, in the weeks leading up to last week's push for a budget deal, the President approved plans that had the White House and federal agencies looking at every federal government resource that entailed public interaction, and whether it could be shut down during a closure of the government -- even if under normal government closures those resources would have or could have remained open.
"The goal was to inflict as much inconvenience and pain on the American public and lock them into supporting the Administration's perspective on the budget fight," says a White House source. "It was our nuclear option, but we saw how a government shutdown under Gingrich just destroyed Republican standing with the public, and we felt we could achieve that kind of damage and more, even if we really didn't have to."
For example, a number of websites that provide the public with information about everything from Social Security options to veterans services, even public-private educational websites operated by the Smithsonian, would have been shut down by the Obama Administration had a government closure taken place Saturday morning. "Those sites don't even involve government employees to operate, but we were going to shut them down anyway just to hit home the right message with the public," says the White House aide.
White House sources say some agencies, like the Smithsonian, which manages a number of the museums and Washington attractions tourists prize most during their visits, pushed back on shutting down the websites, but were overridden by the White House...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
-
This whole thing has been orchestrated, the Dems have been planning to do this since they decided not to pass a budget. If anyone still can't see this, there is no hope for you.
If the repubs were smart, they would have gone after some of their own scared cows, they easily could have trimmed money from DOD and other places. Then come to the table and say your turn.
-
Gates has already pre emptively cut programs..to include the F-22, which we need. We're also cutting 49K by 2015. The DOD could cut more with better oversight..but I think its time for Energy/Education/NEA and several others to get the chop outright.
-
Gates has already pre emptively cut programs..to include the F-22, which we need. We're also cutting 49K by 2015. The DOD could cut more with better oversight..but I think its time for Energy/Education/NEA and several others to get the chop outright.
How about just getting about 500 $9 calculators and drop them at the feet of Obama an tell him - "Hey chief, earn to use this"
-
Gates has already pre emptively cut programs..to include the F-22, which we need. We're also cutting 49K by 2015. The DOD could cut more with better oversight..but I think its time for Energy/Education/NEA and several others to get the chop outright.
That is the problem right there, instead of cutting shit that isn't need ( and there is plenty of shit in DOD that isn't needed) they go after something like the F-22.
-
Haha, wow. Those people make guys like Straw Man and blacken look somewhat intelligent. :-X
you want to go down that road,spaghetti arms
-
Activists Give Boehner A Nod of Approval (Tea Partiers looking forward)
The Wall Street Journal ^ | April 9, 2011 | Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Levitz
Leaders of the small-government, tea-party movement are generally giving House Speaker John Boehner high marks for his leadership in the spending showdown, even though the agreement eventually reached Friday night fell short of the cuts the tea party once demanded.
The relationship between the Republican leadership and these activists is one of the most important determinants of how this Congress will manage the fiscal fights to come.
Tea-party backers have been leery of Mr. Boehner for months, questioning his zeal and driving him toward a tougher line on spending.
As negotiations inched close to a deal late Friday, much of the movement's institutional leadership resisted raising the temperature and were willing to cut Mr. Boehner some slack, in hope that he will extract more dramatic concessions in the budget showdowns to come.
Within weeks, the House will press forward on a blueprint to dramatically change Medicare and Medicaid, lower tax rates, simplify the tax code, and cut nonsecurity spending by $1.6 trillion over the next decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
-
How He Did It: Three Keys to Boehner’s Budget Victory
FoxNews ^ | April 09, 2011 | Chris Stirewalt
One week ago, John Boehner was dead meat. Facing a rebellion among his freshman members and with a government shutdown looming, Washington was preparing a professional obituary for the speaker of the House.
If he agreed to any compromise on the plan to fund the government for the remainder of the federal fiscal year, Boehner would lose the confidence of his caucus and be a lame duck. If he dug in and joined the fiscal hard-liners in shutting down the government, Boehner would lose his ability to negotiate with Democrats in future fights. His options were to either lose face or to lose his most important bargaining tool. Checkmate.
Yet today, Boehner’s clout in his caucus and as a negotiator have been enhanced.
He is the primary author of a compromise to keep the government operating for the rest of the year with the largest spending reduction in history – 63 percent of the original GOP request of $61 billion. Republicans also got a potpourri of sweeteners, like up-or-down votes on politically painful subjects like President Obama’s health care law and federal subsidies for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Not too shabby for a guy who held only one of three seats at the negotiating table.
How did he do it?
Managed Expectations
Boehner’s greatest asset in the process was the low expectations of the skeptics and Democrats.
The press has been waiting for the Tea Party revolt since before the November elections. Reporters have been flogging this story so long that tend to see its shadow over everything that happens in Republican politics. If all you have is a hammer…
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
so to be clear - it's a total repub win.
they got far less $, they didn't stop NPR, PP, or any obama liberal handout bullshit.
They got 3 billion more than obama offered. Obama kept 99% of his deficit.
Wow, that's a win? What does a loss look like?
-
so to be clear - it's a total repub win.
they got far less $, they didn't stop NPR, PP, or any obama liberal handout bullshit.
They got 3 billion more than obama offered. Obama kept 99% of his deficit.
Wow, that's a win? What does a loss look like?
Again - this is the budget from last year that obama reid pelosi never passed. They are dealing with the madoff obam who wanted a budget shutdown to screw over the military.
Is it drstically less than i want? Yes. however, under the circumatances of having your reckeless criminal messiah in office - it is what it is.
-
Again - this is the budget from last year that obama reid pelosi never passed. They are dealing with the madoff obam who wanted a budget shutdown to screw over the military.
Is it drstically less than i want? Yes. however, under the circumatances of having your reckeless criminal messiah in office - it is what it is.
240 acts like a GOP that controls 1/3 is going to get everything they want. They won this battle big time. Not just in the amount they wanted but in the ideological battle. They showed that the Dems aren't the least bit serious about cutting the deficit and people will remember that.
240 can spin this all he wants (he's already trying) but this was about the best the GOP was going to get.
-
bachmann and pence - the two leading tea party voices - have said it's not enough and will not be getting their vote.
Maybe it's enough for the weeper of the house, a total RINO.
For true repubs like pence and bachamnn - it's a FAIL.
-
They were never going to get what they wanted with the dems controlling the senate and white house. Not that it matters to you, what with you being a hypocritical twat and all. You blasted Ryan's proposal to slash TRILLIONS from the deficit and now you're all over the GOP's nuts for not cutting enough. Give it a rest. You were thoroughly embarrassed on this entire budget mess, so much so that you actually had to resort to class-warfare propaganda in an effort to save face.
You're a fucking troll and nothing more.
-
It's all smoke in mirrors, if anything was actually cut, it is so miniscule it doesn't change anyhing. It is the left/right paradigm at work. As the great Carroll Quigly one wrote:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies,”
The only group that won the shutdown showdown are the big governmet globalists as they fool the American people once again.
-
Yes. its the only fair way. I hate the thought of cutting military - but the only fair way is to tell everyone "this year yu have $10 to spend - next year $9, figure out hw to get it done"
I'm ok with cutting the military some but please be careful in how it's cut. The way you worded it isn't cool. I wouldn't want to cut what the troops need to do their job. If they need my tax dollars to stay safe, I'd give extra for that. How you cut back the military is a task that should be delicate and not risk American lives. If you just flat out cut their spending, guess who'll they'll stiff most likely.
-
I'm for cutting defense. Just don't cut a Soldier's salary 10%, especially when half the force is deployed to combat zones. You can cut drastically by pulling back some of or 900 plus bases across the world and ending unconstitutional wars.
I would arge we do not need the F-22. We have the F-15C, which, in its old age, still outmatches anything the Chinese or Russians can put in the sky in large numbers. We also still have the F-35 which is is along the lines of a slightly cheaper F-22.
-
I'm ok with cutting the military some but please be careful in how it's cut. The way you worded it isn't cool. I wouldn't want to cut what the troops need to do their job. If they need my tax dollars to stay safe, I'd give extra for that. How you cut back the military is a task that should be delicate and not risk American lives. If you just flat out cut their spending, guess who'll they'll stiff most likely.
This is true but I'm in agreement that cutting everything across the board would be a good place to start.
A great place to start would be making these Eurotrash twats pull their own weight with regards to their defense. 8)
-
This is true but I'm in agreement that cutting everything across the board would be a good place to start.
A great place to start would be making these Eurotrash twats pull their own weight with regards to their defense. 8)
If we can get our guys out of places that keep bitching about us, we'd save a shitload of money.
The common "defense" means staying at home and beating off the trouble makers who come fuck with us.
-
This is true but I'm in agreement that cutting everything across the board would be a good place to start.
A great place to start would be making these Eurotrash twats pull their own weight with regards to their defense. 8)
I agree. a general cut across the board. Military cuts should be handled more carefull.
Actually we could just get the ball rolling by cutting the TSA completely :D And then holding an auction for the highest bidder who wants to shove a naked scanner up the directors ass on the way out ;D
-
I agree. a general cut across the board. Military cuts should be handled more carefull.
Actually we could just get the ball rolling by cutting the TSA completely :D And then holding an auction for the highest bidder who wants to shove a naked scanner up the directors ass on the way out ;D
I can agree with that, but the big 3 are going to have to be tackled a lot harder. And if somebody - Lib or Repub - doesn't get healthcare inflation down to manageable levels, I don't see much happening in that regard.
-
&feature=feedu
-
dont touch military, cut welfare
-
dont touch military, cut welfare
Racist post reported.
-
Racist post reported.
fuck you ;D
-
Again - why didn't reid bama pelosi do a budget last year?
Anyone anyone anyone?
-
Again - why didn't reid bama pelosi do a budget last year?
Anyone anyone anyone?
maybe you should write a letter to them.. how the fuck would we know
-
They were too busy with their insane wtf agenda to worry about it.
-
They were too busy with their insane wtf agenda to worry about it.
well if thats what you think.,...what the fuck you ask for
-
Because it would be highly amusing to hear the feeble excuse they provide only to be parroted by sheepish lemmings and dolts who buy into this whole hope and change shit show.
-
Because it would be highly amusing to hear the feeble excuse they provide only to be parroted by sheepish lemmings and dolts who buy into this whole hope and change shit show.
your life is highly amusing...
-
so to be clear - it's a total repub win.
they got far less $, they didn't stop NPR, PP, or any obama liberal handout bullshit.
They got 3 billion more than obama offered. Obama kept 99% of his deficit.
Wow, that's a win? What does a loss look like?
First of all who gives a fuck if Dems or Repubs "won"? I don't give a shit about the DNC or RNC, if America doesn't win then it doesn't mean anything.
-
First of all who gives a fuck if Dems or Repubs "won"? I don't give a shit about the DNC or RNC, if America doesn't win then it doesn't mean anything.
i can dig this statement.. you need too teach some others on this board that concept
-
i can dig this statement.. you need too teach some others on this board that concept
I'm a conservative, not a republican or democrat, the whole concept of the US government using our own money to buy votes from us is repugnant to me. But this country has for to many people with their hand out and not contributing, or really give a shit about the US as long as they get theirs. That is why this country is in decline.
-
America wins when obama loses - qft.
-
America wins when obama loses - qft.
I'm not going to argue with this statement, simply because I don't believe the POTUS has a clue what he is doing. He talks a good game when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but when the rubber meets the road not so much.
-
dont touch military, cut welfare
Racist post reported.
;D
-
Again - why didn't reid bama pelosi do a budget last year?
Anyone anyone anyone?
Too busy spending this country to the brink of collapse.
-
Too busy spending this country to the brink of collapse.
All part of the plan, pass resolutions to keep the government running, and see how mid terms go.
Shit we got our asses kicked, keep passing resolutions, blame the cuts we know have to made to entitlements on the Republicans.
Get MSM in high gear about evil republicans, but don't mention that we never bothered to pass a budget ( ;))
Once the republicans release a budget plan see what public opinion is.
Ryan didn't get bitch slapped so send the POTUS to talk about fiscal responsibility, and cutting with a scalpel and not a an axe.
That about sums up the cowardice of the Democratic party
-
see, i dont really blow obama on this - i called him and reid 6 and 5 foot tall bags of shit above. i mean, way more brutal than others on this thread.
two bags of shit, 6 foot and 5 foot tall, respectively.
33, I called reid a 5 foot bag of shit here. You said you don't recall me bashing him? lol
-
I'm talking about when he ran against angle.