Reply With Quote
Sure, it would have been preferable to have started earlier, but we are where we are today.
That is exactly what I am saying.
That's as realistic an idea as thinking those who have been spending in Congress for 20 years are now coming to Jesus.And since every single one of them has voted for deficit spending at one time or another, then they are not allowed to vote for fiscal dicipline anymore. To take that further, even if we replaced every single one of them with new people who have never voted for or against a bill, the still wouldn't be allowed to vote for fiscal discipline because it is very likely that at some point in their life, they have used a credit card, or borrowed a few bucks from a friend or family member. , I am sure I borrowed a quarter from a buddy to get to a vending machine before I was 7.
It seems that toddlers are our only hope for the Senate/House/Presidency, as they are the only ones who are untainted.
Sure, it would have been preferable to have started earlier, but we are where we are today.
Yes, haggling over $10 billion of directly stimulative benefits after running up the debt $10 trillion.
Forgive my cynicism. This is clearly grandstanding.
Ok, then why do you even comment on politics? If there is (in your opinion) no changing it, and (in your opinion) they are not even allowed to change, even for one vote, then what is the point in making your voice heard? You believe that you have no voice. Do you derive some sort of masturbatory pleasure out of it? I really don't get it. I mean, , 10 years ago we had a surplus after decades of deficit spending. Or was that in a day dream of mine?
Ok, great! Grandstanding it is. Good thing that he is standing grand for something that actually aligns itself with the good of the country, if even for one vote. Fiscal responsibility.
It's fun.
Did I say there was a point?If there is (in your opinion) no changing it, and (in your opinion) they are not even allowed to change, even for one vote, then what is the point in making your voice heard?Not much.You believe that you have no voice.Do you derive some sort of masturbatory pleasure from using the word masturbatory?Do you derive some sort of masturbatory pleasure out of it?What happened to that?I really don't get it. I mean, , 10 years ago we had a surplus after decades of deficit spending. Or was that in a day dream of mine?
Oh yeah, the party of fiscal responsibility came into full power of the government. What was Bunning doing then?
He'll turn around and vote for more deficits soon enough. When his state needs an earmark or two.
In a very fiscally responsible manner.
where was Bunning's obstructionahs when dubya was passing Medicare Part D, and Medicare Advantage, both unfunded, and running 2 bull s war on debt financing?
Yes, but you said it can never change. It did, ipso facto . . . it can happen again.
As far as my choice of verbiage, its probably the first time I have used that word in a few years, but here ya go:
Excessively self-indulgent or self-involved: "[The play's] star . . . paces around his cell, smoking and snarling in a masturbatory rant" (Sam Whiting).
Also, thank you for telling me that you have no point and are therfore not valid, now I can just ignore you in the political forum as a waste of space, I suggest others do the same. I will however continue to read what you have to say about the Toros.
Long enough to make a dent in the actual debt?
Probably not.
You really like that word.As far as my choice of verbiage, its probably the first time I have used that word in a few years, but here ya go:
Excessively self-indulgent or self-involved: "[The play's] star . . . paces around his cell, smoking and snarling in a masturbatory rant" (Sam Whiting).
Good for you.Also, thank you for telling me that you have no point and are therfore not valid, now I can just ignore you in the political forum as a waste of space, I suggest others do the same. I will however continue to read what you have to say about the Toros.
Feel better?
Is that reducing the debt?
You are absolutely right to say that he should have obstructed all of those things until money could be found to finance them (I would disagree with you on Afghanistan, though). So then you are glad that he finally is starting to block unfunded bills, right?
You realize I have no effect on the Toros either, right?
strange that you don't know why he's doing it just now.
I honestly don't care what someone's motivations for doing the right thing are, as long as the right thing gets done. If Hitler stopped the war and all of his killing because he thought a lizard-bear told him he would be Pope if he did these things, I would take it. WGAF why the right thing is done, as long as it's done.
Wouldn't it be great if Washington politics got SO twisted and backwards that it came a full 360 and went in the right direction again. I know that this is a dream for the forseeable future, so I will take small victories like this when I can.
I say, as long as they're accomplishing nothing, it's in our favor.
yes, because it worked so well lol.
"it" meaning what?
meaning yoni pines for the days that the reigning republicans dragged the country through the mud.
Bunning blinks?
In another interview at the Senators-only elevator near his office, Senator Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said he is working on a deal to pass the unemployment extension bill he has been blocking since last Wednesday.
“We’re working on it,” Bunning told ABC News.
Could the issue be settled today?
“Hopefully,” he said.
Bunning has been blocking a vote on the $10 billion bill -- which would also extend COBRA health benefits, keep doctors who serve Medicare patients from getting a pay cut, give rural satellite TV subscribers access to network television and provide highway funding – because he insists it be paid for with cuts to other programs. Democrats have refused to go along with that.
According to Republican and Democratic sources, the deal Bunning is negotiating with Majority Leader Harry Reid would allow two votes: first, a vote on an amendment to offset the bill’s $10 billion price tag with cuts in other programs; and second, a vote on the bill itself.
This is a deal that Bunning himself rejected on Wednesday because, he said at the time, the vote on the spending cuts would be defeated.
“Of course, we can have a vote on it, and, of course, it can be defeated,” Bunning said on Wednesday. “I was not ready to risk voting on a bill I knew would not get the amount of votes necessary to pay for it.”
My God...
None of you lib s are addressing the "PayGo" rule.
cannot let the democrats slide on this. They most certainly will not let republicans slide on it.
Has nothing to do with this.
So the budget will be balanced this year?None of you lib s are addressing the "PayGo" rule.
cannot let the democrats slide on this. They most certainly will not let republicans slide on it.
Was that part of the paygo legislation?
Don't know what a lib is (an uni for liberians?), anyway as a liberal I have most certainly addressed PayGo.
If not, it's pretty worthless.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions