- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 30, 2012 at 8:17 am #602700
JanSParticipantBut this? Stinks to high heaven:
gee, I’m really curious as to who will post on this thread first…
March 30, 2012 at 9:40 am #753166
HMC RichParticipantNobody voted for the President’s budget. The compromise budget was attacked by the left and right and voted down. Republican led bill passed on party lines, but will be DOA in the Senate.
This will be decided in November. Nothing essentially changes for a while. The can keeps getting kicked down the road.
Since it is such a problem, it shows the government is too big.
March 30, 2012 at 1:49 pm #753167
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
you speak as though the budget is no big deal.
to seniors who depend upon medicare to survive
it’s a very big deal
The passage of the Ryan budget shows that the Republicans in Congress will stop an nothing for political grandstanding
and their base will excuse them anything as long as it scores points…
Really.. you think millionaires need ANOTHER tax cut..
while well over half of America’s elderly women live on an average of $15,000 a year?
America’s elderly men have double that income.. which btw is enough to meet basic living expenses.
$15,000 falls at least $5,000 a year short..
but hey.. it’s not real anyway
until they somehow get the votes
and you have to live with their grandstanding…
March 30, 2012 at 2:18 pm #753168
redblackParticipantbut hey.. it’s not real anyway
until they somehow get the votes
and you have to live with their grandstanding…
more like, “live with your grandparents.”
:)
March 30, 2012 at 2:56 pm #753169
miwsParticipantBut, JoB, you don’t understand, if the millionaires stop getting tax cuts, they might have to give up one of their Cadillacs.
Where is your sense of compassion?
Mike
March 30, 2012 at 3:56 pm #753170
JoBParticipantredblack..
more like
take in your parents and grandparents
at last.. real American family values
several generations back under one roof
March 30, 2012 at 3:56 pm #753171
JoBParticipantMarch 30, 2012 at 4:28 pm #753172
redblackParticipantjo: that’s what i meant. i was just borrowing your phrasing to punch it up a little.
March 30, 2012 at 4:45 pm #753173
JanSParticipantI love it, Rich. Once more it’s the Repubs who are above board, and the Dems will be the goat. I will firmly believe that the House did this to make a point, not because they give a damn about this country. There will be no working together, not now, not ever, as far as they’re concerned.
March 30, 2012 at 4:59 pm #753174
redblackParticipantrich: there was no reason to vote for the president’s budget. the continuing resolutions and budget “compromises” would have overridden it anyway. the senate did vote on 3 other house budget resolutions last year, though.
as far as no budgets coming from the senate budget committee since april 2010, i have a couple of theories.
first, if republicans are just going to attack everything the democrats propose – and you know they will – why give them a target?
second, i’m wondering if the democrats and bernie sanders can’t get a quorum on the committee. 11 dems, 11 republicans, and 1 independent who caucuses with the dems. for budget resolution purposes, a quorum is a simple majority. if they can’t get a budget resolution out of committee, then the senate has nothing to vote on.
kent conrad is pretty mum on the subject, though.
and, yes, it was april 2010 when the senate budget committee last proposed a budget resolution for FY 2011. not 1,000 days.
and if the senate as a whole can’t get a budget resolution passed, then there is no budget resolution. since republicans imposed this supermajority procedural crap instead of a simple majority, the senate is effectively deadlocked.
March 30, 2012 at 5:25 pm #753175
365StairsParticipantBudget – Proposal only.
It will only “stink” if approved as is.
Which..it wont be.
These Political Children we elected cannot get anything done before the election anyway.
March 30, 2012 at 5:43 pm #753176
SmittyParticipant“The budget would cut 17 percent of the SNAP budget, or $133.5 billion over a decade. As the center points out, there are only two ways to achieve that savings: Mr. Romney could simply take the benefits away from 8 million of the 47 million who now receive them, or he could cut everyone’s benefits. “
Classic Liberal thinking. How about option number 3; Get the unemployment rate down to 4% again. Would that help a little?
March 30, 2012 at 6:33 pm #753177
JanSParticipantsmitty…got any ideas as to how to do that? Saying it is one thing…doing it is another. And if those jobs created only pay a minimum wage, how is this going to negate the need for extra help?
March 30, 2012 at 6:41 pm #753178
redblackParticipanti know! we’ll take a page from the reagan playbook and add panhandling as a job classification!
ooh! how about “mother?” that’s a job. it doesn’t pay well, but it would reduce the unemployment roles right quick.
how about “occupation?” “unemployed.” that’s a job, too! and it pays!
i’m a web site commenter! (it’s an internship, but it’s a job.)
and it gives me two jobs!
voila! instant jobs!
March 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm #753179
dobroParticipantHey, I think I’ve got it! How about a jobs program rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, bridges, railway routes…oh, nevermind.
March 30, 2012 at 7:06 pm #753180
SmittyParticipantBill Clinton, the Republican Congress, the 1990’s 5% unemployment and I had a good laugh at you three.
March 30, 2012 at 7:33 pm #753181
redblackParticipantright back atcha, smitty. :)
by the way, that was the late ’90’s, when we had sane stewardship of the economy during the tech boom.
i don’t like everything that clinton did, but he knew how to take advantage of a fat GDP.
it’s a good thing, too, because gingrich was about to kick millions off of the welfare roles.
March 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm #753182
dobroParticipantWho knew that Smitty loved Bill clinton?
March 30, 2012 at 8:00 pm #753183
SmittyParticipantWell, I will agree the federal revenue stream during the late 90’s was more due to the tech boom than any policy decisions. Timing is everything. However, on the expense side I will give Clinton and the Republican Congress credit for keeping things in check and not going on a drunken spending spree.
March 30, 2012 at 8:06 pm #753184
SmittyParticipantdobro – read it again – Clinton and the Republican Congress – something tells me Clinton and a Democrat Congress wouldn’t have had the same restraint.
Side bar – Why do Democrats get so huffy when you call them Democrat (like Democrat Congress instead of Democratic Congress). Isn’t that the name of the party? Isn’t Democratic a system more than a name? Nobody ever complains when you say “Patty Murray – Democrat, Washington” instead of “Patty Murray – Democratic, Washington”.
March 30, 2012 at 8:19 pm #753185
HMC RichParticipantSoooo, if it was cool to like Clinton (and the Republican controlled Congress) because they kept spending down, why are so many of you supporting Mr. Obama and his massive accrual of debt?
Here is the difference in how Democrats and Republicans look at things….http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/sen-levin-tries-to-legislate-a-parking-place/#ixzz1qc83qu5i
Dobro, yes, infrastructure, I agree. But you have to cut some other areas. 40 cents loaned on every dollar. The numbers come out negative. Sorry, but hard choices will have to made at some time.
JoB, Redblack, I will get to your posts later. Wish I had more time.
March 31, 2012 at 9:41 pm #753186
kootchmanMemberWhere is the Senate budget? 1100 days and counting, They won’t submit one because they are too afraid to, They are afraid to go on record for the simple reason if they follow the party line, we will be bankrupt. I’d LOVE to see a Senate budget resolution. The Senate won’t even support the Obama budget. On or off record. They leave to to the Republican controlled house to do the dirty work… dirty but necessary. OK… there is opposition and dissent from the left on the congressional budget… so let’s compare it to the Senate budget so we can asess where the compromise areas are. Or, which makes more sense. Which serves the national interest. Why does the Democrat Senate refuse to submit a budget? Give Ryan a high five for some courage… at least he has some principal… Harry Hideaway, where is your budget?
March 31, 2012 at 9:59 pm #753187
JanSParticipantand the House isn’t following party line?
March 31, 2012 at 11:45 pm #753188
kootchmanMemberAt least they are trying to overcome a frightening collapse of the federal government. Sing song mantras like “raise taxes” won’t cover the overdue and interest penalties that come from overdrawn accounts. Stand pat. Is there some justification..some rationale reason..where ya think if we hide our head in the sand and just spend more this will all go away? 37 per cent of the total US economy is the federal government… with Obamacare that would top 50%. Those growth jobs ? Ya think all those jobs are minimum wage? Hardly. The market is very competitive for high skill workers who are relevant to todays economy. Minimal skills get minimum wages.
March 31, 2012 at 11:49 pm #753189
kootchmanMemberNo action from Hideaway Harry? Perfect.
Democrats have a slim majority in the 100-member U.S. Senate with 53 seats, including two held by independent who usually caucus with them. Almost half of these seats are up for election at the same time as the presidential election on November 6, 2012.
The Ryan budget is not that far off. Where is the Senate counter proposal? Everyone boo hoo hooed about no Republican health plan? It;s there in the budget. Three times it’s been in the budget. Harry? Wake up !!
A gain of four Senate seats would hand Republicans the majority. And only three would be enough if they also win the White House because a Republican vice president would have the power to cast tie-breaking votes in an evenly split Senate.
Stall Harry, stall…. the TEA Party ground game starts soon. Hiding and doing nothing is not an affirmative ground game. “Wd did nothing” for three years is not justification for keeping the Senate Democrat.
The House has learned… been to the well with Democrats too many times. You will get some tax increases, many through tax code reform.. but not before there are budget cuts and the size and cost of the federal government is reduced. No Democrat Senator wants to go on record for doing what has to be done. That is why Simpson Bowles was dropped as quickly as it was presented. Binge spending is no longer cool..
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.