Reply With Quote
Biden should have, from day one been renegotiating. Obama has no business wasting everyone's time.
The election has nothing to do with:
1. The way our federal government was set up to give the minority group power, or to give checks and balances. His "plan" (whatever it is) needs to make it through Senate and House! Just like the House needs to make it through the Senate and signed by Pres.
2. The Government having to fund itself responsibly. If they want to raise taxes and not only not cut spending, but increase it-theirs no point to raise taxes. Except if it was a political tool to get him elected by making people feel like the 'evil rich aren't paying their fair share'.
3. Having four years prior to this without coming up with anything. Even when he has super majority in both chambers. He chose to push it down the road to this moment. Sure a politicians first job is to get reelected but he still needs to stop playing 'poor sport'. He has as much political capital to spend as Bush did in 04. America just didn't like either second option in both election.
This cuppled with him going after guns will spend up all his political capital that he thinks he has.
Biden should have, from day one been renegotiating. Obama has no business wasting everyone's time.
"Even when he has super majority in both chambers."
You Lie. Barry never had a reliable 60 in the Senate, with Lieberman, Ben "Horse's Ass" Nelson, etc as DINOs.
"federal government was set up to give the minority group power"
The Cons ution says 51 wins a Senate vote, but the Senate voted to constipate itself by requiring 60, plus the perverse "silent, anonymous hold" bull , those and other giving the minority (even a single Senator) the power of obstructionist NO.
Yes, that someone would even cite that just reveals how disingenuous he/she is.
FreedomWorks Feud: War Inside Tea Party Group Gets Nastier
When the news broke in early December that former GOP Rep. Armey had abruptly resigned as chairman of FreedomWorks, a powerhouse of the conservative movement and an instrumental force within the tea party, Armey maintained that the nasty split was due to differences he had with the top management of FreedomWorks about the group's operations and future.
Immediately, media reports disclosed that Armey had been concerned that Matt Kibbe, the group's president, had used FreedomWorks resources to promote a book he had written (which was released in June) and that Armey himself had received an $8 million payout from a FreedomWorks board member to ease his departure.
But internal do ents obtained by Mother Jones show that the bitter war inside FreedomWorks has also resulted in allegations of staff wrongdoing (prompting an investigation by lawyers) and counter-allegations that Armey and his allies tried to turn FreedomWorks into a partisan outfit backing establishment Republicans over tea party insurgents.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/ -armey-freedomworks-hostile-takeover-memo
Neither of those things have anything to do with putting things in terms of days it would fund the Federal Government.
To wit, I will use your original statement, and change the variables.
"If we cut spending by the entire amount of the deficit, it would only fund the Federal Government for 87 days. Then what?"
It is a stupid talking point perpetrated by stupid people. Don't be one of them.
I love the thought process that gives us "Don't raise taxes but let's do nothing so taxes get raised"
Where are you getting your data? I don't understand what you don't understand about not having annual deficits.
I don't think it is a stupid point. Not everyone sits around spending hours on current events. Or theorizing ideas and playing devil's advocate with a clear edge towards one view. It's a pretty great point that the most time spent to pay our bills won't even cover 10%.
Did you vote for a dictator?
Publicly available sources on the projection for 2013 Federal Outlays and the resulting deficit.
What does having, or not having, federal deficits have to do with putting revenues or expenditures in terms of a stupid unit of measure?I don't understand what you don't understand about not having annual deficits.
Hence why we don't base policy around their uninformed opinions.I don't think it is a stupid point. Not everyone sits around spending hours on current events.
What does this have to do with putting revenues or expenditures in terms of a stupid unit of measure?Or theorizing ideas and playing devil's advocate with a clear edge towards one view. It's a pretty great point that the most time spent to pay our bills won't even cover 10%.
Here is another question, what does putting revenues or expenditures in terms of your unit of measure intend to illustrate?
I mean, if we fundamentally changed to the tax code to a flat 25% of ALL INCOME, it would only fund the government for 362 days. Then what?
Can someone tell me how many bills the Bush tax cuts will cost in terms of solar masses? What is it, about a gram per dollar?
55 libraries of Congress...
Is having the power of veto not in the Cons ution?
Cute... How about if I reword it: Obama's tax increase wouldn't even offset his healthcare cost increases.
Not that it was dishonest
Not that it was misleading
Because stupid people say it.
Sure he can veto it. I was referring to "he shouldn't have to." It seemed to me by DMX7's post that he thought Obama should get what ever he want.
so then, the president using the cons utionally enumerated veto power, if you disagree with it, amounts to dictatorship . . .
sounds like, you don't know what a cons ution is . . .
That was never my message. Again, I read DMX7's words as effectively meaning that Obama should get what ever he wants since he won the election.
it's understandable you're upset Obama and his party won the election and therefore stand with a bigger mandate from the public. GOP voted for the sequester in 2011 in hopes they would wax Obama in 2012. It didn't happen, therefore, Obama occupies the catbird seat . . .
And is as free as any President to use the veto, or to talk about using it. Republicans sure ain't shy about using the filibuster or holding up the President's nominees. You think it isn't fair if the President uses what the Cons ution gave him?
I recently saw a nominee get his post with I think a 98-0 vote in the senate. You have to admit, those ones the GOP opposes are pretty biased.
I'm sorry, you don't have to admit . You do have your 5th amendment rights.
The limit of my being upset is that people think Obama should get his way on fiscal issues. Do you by chance remember the part in the cons ution that says bills originate in the house? Well guess what. The house is fully elected every 2 years, and do you know which party has a majority? You thinking there is any type of a mandate must mean you think the democrats won the house too.
Senate and the Presidency, plus a popular majority of votes in the House. the gerrymander saved the GOP majority there . . .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions