The party of No said No to itself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

And Perry is going to have to accept that as well.

The question is, whither the cuts?

---

True.

As Obama so eloquently said in 2008 when he was shooting Republicans the finger, "Elections have consequences".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

They don't really have to be.That's the false strait jacket that's being propagated because the Republicans are currently out of power.

---

And that's the attitude propagated by both parties that got us into this deficit mess to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Did you mean to say that the democrats are out of power?

---

Practically speaking, might as well be.

That's what they get for attaching it to the "Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011," rather than making it a stand alone bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Practically speaking, might as well be.

---

Well, in the House of Representatives, they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

And that's the attitude propagated by both parties that got us into this deficit mess to start with.

---

There are times for a national government to deficit spend and times to not do so. Both parties have certainly gotten the timing wrong.

lol attitude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Well, in the House of Representatives, they are.

---

No shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Yeah, you are right. The Democrats are going to have to accept that when you have 15 trillion in deficits and a budget, and then unexpected disaster expenses which have to be paid, those expenses have to be off-set with budget cuts somewhere else. Pretty basic, really.

---

Fine. Offset the cost by eliminating subsidies to big oil as opposed to taking it out of the clean energy fund. What would be wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Fine. Offset the cost by eliminating subsidies to big oil as opposed to taking it out of the clean energy fund. What would be wrong with that?

---

Sounds fine to me.

Just don't take it out of education or medical care for kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Fine. Offset the cost by eliminating subsidies to big oil as opposed to taking it out of the clean energy fund. What would be wrong with that?

---

I personally think they ought to eliminate ALL "special" deductions and credits for targeted interests, but that's another thread.

Funny you guys always mention the oil companies though. The US government already makes more off of the oil companies than the oil companies make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I personally think they ought to eliminate ALL "special" deductions and credits for targeted interests, but that's another thread.

Funny you guys always mention the oil companies though. The US government already makes more off of the oil companies than the oil companies make.

---

Then how do oil companies make a profit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Then how do oil companies make a profit?

---

OK, I know you are smarter than that. The Feds 18% comes right off the top and is an expense. They still make a profit (smaller than 18%) after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

OK, I know you are smarter than that. The Feds 18% comes right off the top and is an expense. They still make a profit (smaller than 18%) after that.

---

Depends on your definition of "make" in that case.

Do they all pay 18% without exception? Would any credits available to them offset any of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Depends on your definition of "make" in that case.

Do they all pay 18% without exception? Would any credits available to them offset any of that?

---

The Feds risk free 18% is off of every dollar you pay at the pump for gas. Thats a slam dunk. Doesn't include oil leases fees, state fees and federal and state taxes, etc. or any tax deductions like depletion allowances, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The Feds risk free 18% is off of every dollar you pay at the pump for gas. Thats a slam dunk.

---

Right. As you just said, the oil companies don't pay that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Right. As you just said, the oil companies don't pay that.

---

I never said they did, CHUMP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I personally think they ought to eliminate ALL "special" deductions and credits for targeted interests, but that's another thread.

Funny you guys always mention the oil companies though. The US government already makes more off of the oil companies than the oil companies make.

---

They charge 18% on a product produced by the oil companies, the 18% is collected by the oil companies, and the 18% is paid directly to the US Government by the oil companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I never said they did, CHUMP.



They charge 18% on a product produced by the oil companies, the 18% is collected by the oil companies, and the 18% is paid directly to the US Government by the oil companies.

---

So they don't really make it off the oil companies themselves, rather their customers.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So they don't really make it off the oil companies themselves, rather their customers.

Thanks for clearing that up.

---

No oil company, no gas, no 18%.

yeah they made it off the oil company.

You certainly are an argumentative little bitch over the silliest parsing of words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

No oil company, no gas, no 18%.

yeah they made it off the oil company.

You certainly are an argumentative little bitch over the silliest parsing of words.

---

Hey, I thanked you for clearing it up. You muddy the waters fairly often in your initial statements. I guess it can be frustrating when actual discussion blunts your desired effect.

No comments about the fact this budget authorization was attached to H R 2608

Quote:

---

AN ACT
To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs
under the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

---

Keep in mind, this was an amendment to the bill that failed. The bill itself would still need to pass also.

Why have two things people may vote against instead of a stand alone bill that would only have opposition to itself, and not a second line item?

Riddle me this.

The attached senate amendment was by a democrat controlled senate. Why did they vote no on the bill in the house?

Are the bills the same?

Yes or no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

OK, I know you are smarter than that. The Feds 18% comes right off the top and is an expense. They still make a profit (smaller than 18%) after that.

---

They sure do. Three companies in the top 5:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...011/full_list/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Are the bills the same?

Yes or no.

---

The Small Business bill passed in the House unanimously and was sent to the Senate. The democrat controlled senate added the amendment, and therefore had to be sent back to the house for approval. All but 8 house democrats rejected it.


From Thomas: Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 - 2012)
H.R.2608
All Congressional Actions with Amendments

Quote:

---

ALL ACTIONS:

7/21/2011:
Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.
7/26/2011 6:46pm:
Mr. Hanna moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
7/26/2011 6:46pm:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5539-5541)
7/26/2011 6:46pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2608.
7/26/2011 6:56pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5539-5540)
7/26/2011 6:56pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
7/27/2011:
Received in the Senate.
7/28/2011:
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S4974-4975)
7/28/2011:
S.AMDT.588 Amendment SA 588 proposed by Senator Reid for Senator Landrieu. (consideration: CR S4974-4975; text: CR S4974-4975)
In the nature of a substitute.
7/28/2011:
S.AMDT.588 Amendment SA 588 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
7/28/2011:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
7/28/2011:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
9/21/2011 3:52pm:
Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 405, Mr. Rogers (KY) took from the Speaker's table H.R. 2608 with the Senate amendment thereto, and was recognized for a motion. (consideration: CR H6315-6328)
9/21/2011 3:52pm:
Mr. Rogers (KY) moved that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendment. (text of Senate amendment: CR H6315-6316; text of House amendment to Senate amendment: CR H6316-6318)
9/21/2011 3:53pm:
DEBATE - Pursuant to H.Res. 405, the House proceeded with one hour of debate on the Rogers (KY) motion to agree to the Senate amendment with an amendment to H.R. 2608.
9/21/2011 5:12pm:
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6328)
9/21/2011 5:43pm:
On motion that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendment Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 195 - 230 (Roll No. 719). (consideration: CR H6328)
9/21/2011 5:43pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

---

Roll call for HR 2608

Then my answer is to score a political victory in a way the Republicans have in the recent past.