Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
This is bull.... more cuts are needed.
The good-looking reptile saved the day.
Well, am I the only one relieved that they finally agreed how to arrange those deck chairs?
What does government funding of Planned Parenthood have to do with abortion rights?I used to donate monthly to PP, but dropped them when they became political. If I want to fund left wing loons, I'll do it without the intermediary.
Great. In exchange for alloowing more African-Americans to be dissolved in the womb, Obama is willing to pay the soldiers he's sending to war. What a swell guy.Can't wait for 2012.
Not even gonna bother fixing my typo. Obama isn't worth the keystrokes.
"Well, am I the only one relieved that they finally agreed how to arrange those deck chairs?"No, I am too. Although I imagine most conservatives will not be. For valid reasons. But we needed to get past this for the big budet battle coming in a few months.
I think the GOP could eventually get every cut they want if they only put PP in the mix and drop at the very end.
It was supposed to be $100 bil.Chump change is what they settle for.Primary any one who votes for this.
"Primary any one who votes for this."You're positing giving Obama and the Dems a huge electoral advantage, exactly what they're hoping for. Just register and vote as a Dem and you'll do far less damage to the country.
The beautiful thing for the Republicans is that next year they can make the exact same offer. Nice sacred cow you've got there. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Yup. One party (and its the democrats), have gone out of their way to gain the edge.On a 50/50 field. Where in Wisconsin you just saw the split happening right before your eyes. (Or you think a 7,000 vote advantage is "huge," when a million and a half people went out to vote.Your "huge" is my "close." Why has the republican party saddled itself with a PROHIBITION?Maybe, it's in the blood?
The PP funding was always the hostage just like Obama though funding the troops was his. Let's see what the 2012 appropriations bills look like.
Prohibition was always a progressive cause.
Sucker bets placed in three card montey.535 people do not care that before this is over, there will be blood in the streets.When it occurs, they will all be "surprised, shocked, and disappointed."Read more Edward Gibbon. The Empire is in a continual transition.WV: dighterh:My dighterh told me I was estoopid until she had her child and learned the troof of life.
Just a correction. This had nothing to do with abortion rights but rather abortion funding.
Rs gave billion dollar Reid fig leaf. That image makes even me want to barf.WV:midicar Medical care for middle age or one of those small cars BO wants you to trade in for.
wv - fricksalthat is all
Will PP stop donating to and for democrat politicians?
535 people do not care that before this is over, there will be blood in the streetsWhose blood? Which streets?Your vapid bloviating metaphors do conservatism no favors.
I was at a gathering with a federal employee, and when he learned of the agreement he was actually bummed 'cause he had a lot of things planned to do next week. Now he has to work.There's really nothing more annoying than people who are always checking their smart phones for information. I realized that tonight.
"There's really nothing more annoying than people who are always checking their smart phones for information. I realized that tonight."I'd say 'lame,' but 'annoying' isn't totally wrong.
This is important for what its not:-its not more spending-its the cuts that need to be made but its now moving in the right direction(and its good to be done with the kabuki.)
PS big loser is BO. He seemed lost.How can I make a great speech about spending cuts
I think the GOP could eventually get every cut they want if they only put PP in the mix and drop at the very end.I assumed that was the point of putting PP cuts there - so they could trade them away.But this is all really theater. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit and they're arguing whether they should cut 33 or 39 billion. Gee, I'm really fat - should I cut my 5000 calorie diet to 4950 or 4952?
Yay!!!!vicki from pasadena
I don't know, Paul. When will the Chamber of Commerce stop spending millions and millions supporting only Republican candidates?Vicki from Pasadena
Nope. Not impressed.
1) The Planned Parenthood rider was ALWAYS going to be traded away. It gave Reid a fig leaf he could take back to his K street friends and show them that he was earning the money they paid him. So that's not a loss.2) What keeps getting lost is that the rider that prohibits any taxpayer funding for abortions in DC *DID* stay in. The Democrats took it out in 2009, and now it's back in. So by trading away the PP rider, he actually DID get something concrete.3) Boehner got $38.5B when the Democrats were crying about $6B and $30B and even yesterday $33B. Remember how $33B was going to kill grandma? And now they are being forced to swallow $38.5B. With control over only the House, he has to be given A LOT of credit for getting as much as he did.4) This has exposed the Democrats as ultimately beholden to NPR and Planned Parenthood (their sacred cows) and not very serious about governing at all. Let's be clear: NPR is $450 million, and Planned Parenthood is $300 million. And the Democrats gave up $5.5 billion in additional cuts in order to keep their funding. If that's not a clear statement of their TRUE values, then there is no such thing.5) Obama, once again, has a very bad taste in his mouth. Remember how he was going to show "fiscal discipline" and FREEZE spending? Now he has had to swallow $78B in cuts to his budget proposal. He was obviously mad at having had to do so.6) Republicans not only got most of what they wanted, they also did something that's even MORE important: they proved that they were serious about governance. Democrats have spent 2 1/2 years talking about how crazy and "EXTREME" the Republicans and Tea Partiers are, how they were eager to shut down government, etc. And now all those talking points have officially expired.7) The big winner here? John Boehner. Most of the country didn't/doesn't know who he is. Now a whole lot more of them do. And unlike Reid's bomb-throwing and Obama's whimpering and whining, he was the one who was steadfast and calm throughout.
@seven machosConservatism? Bloviating?Thou furious?Read more Edward Gibbon and you might find that the transition of the once wonderful U.S. of A. was begun 100 years ago. Blood in the streets was begun 90 years ago. It's only going to play itself out for the next 200 years.Snort. You actually think there is a way to make this thing whole again? I have no intentions of doing "conservatism" any favors. What has it done for my Grandchildren?You are playing 3 card montey. And you are losing.Mercun blood. Every street.WV: phomim:Seven machos is phomim it in from homonym.
I don't know, Paul. When will the Chamber of Commerce stop spending millions and millions supporting only Republican candidates?I'll answer that one: when Democrats stop sucking at the union teat to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year and constantly trying to take away the secret ballot from workers, force union members to contribute to Democratic campaigns through involuntary dues, force workers to join unions in order to have jobs.Why do Democrats hate the middle class so much?
And this is a huge win for EVERYONE: No additional funding for IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare.
"Your vapid bloviating metaphors do conservatism no favors."And what does Seven's type of conservatism look like?"I wish for a ship to come and take you across an ocean to a place where you will be forced to do menial tasks until you die. I further wish that your children and their children will suffer the same fate. Then, their children and the children of those children for a few generations can live as third-class citizens with few rights and no opportunity for education or self-improvement.Then, when we finally reach the next couple generations, I hope that my distant-future spawn goes up to yours and calls them fucking idiots."Sad. Much more Stackmanesque than conservative.
@Hank Rearden_WI Who the eff asked for your opinion?STFUWV: enydrain:Look in enydrain and there will always be a turd.
Another stick in Obama's eye, and good news for poor students in DC: it re-opens the Opportunity Scholarship voucher program to new enrollees in DC for the first time since Obama and the Democrats shut it down in 2009. You know how Democrats always claim that Republicans hate the poor and don't want kids to have good educations?Yeah. Remember who it was that fought Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party to make sure that poor black kids in DC get quality educations.(And yes, the program has proven results and was popular with poor black parents in the District. But the Democrats shut it down because the teachers' unions demanded it.)
Wow, Hank. That's totally awesome that you are quoting things I wrote years ago. That's one of my favorite lines, by the way. Are you one of those people who believes that black people as a group are stupid? If so, I wish that wish for you. Tonight.Anyway, metaphors of "blood in the streets" (not to mention spouting racial intelligence theories) are no way to win public support for vital and deep budget cuts.Finally, ask our resident leftists if I am conservative. Perhaps I'm not, though. I think what I am is just anti-stupid ass clown.
7) The big winner here? John Boehner.Disagree.Boehner's days as Speaker are numbered.
Blood in the streets was begun 90 years ago. It's only going to play itself out for the next 200 years.So European streets then?Anyway, it sounds like the United States started declining when it was a tinpot democracy nobody gave a shit about. All those years of dominance were decline. Not to mention that the United States proper has been arguably the safest place in the world since 1910. Not much blood on many streets other than maybe your little cul de sac from where you write screeds filled with references to the vital, vital Edward Gibbon.Too funny.
"issue related to abortion rights."Not exactly. The right was never in question; the obligation for us to pay for abortions was.
@7nachosYep. You are correct, Sir. The decline began before the rise. Do you follow nature at all? Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn. Works as a natural progression in all things.The only cul de sac in this conversation is the one in your mind. I have seen the most evil of mankind (sic), and seen the the sainted, as well. The joke here in the good ole U.S. of A. is that neither conservative, nor Liberal, understands the true state of mankind (sic).We're going down, baby, and our "leaders" are taking us there. We're already a bribery laden government. We'll be driving down the road with bribery and payola in our pockets on an everyday basis before long.Do we have faith in the election system? "FRAUD"Do we trust in the fuzz and the prosecutors?Google " do not talk to the cops"The commies won from the inside, and the game is being played out in slow motion now.Go do a favor for the "conservatives" who allowed this to happen.Three card montey.WV: licta:I licta, you licta, we all licta fairy tail.
Where's the [sic] for "three card montey"? Wouldn't such a prescient and wise fellow put it in there?Loons with tinfoil hats always give the game away somehow, though usually not this easily.
"Where's the [sic] for "three card montey"? Wouldn't such a prescient and wise fellow put it in there?Loons with tinfoil hats always give the game away somehow, though usually not this easily. "So, I don't agree with you, then I wear a tin foil hat?lulzI wear a tin foil mushroom cap on my peetong for Itards like yourself.Why did you start the name calling, Douchebag?WV halin:halin, halin, halin, halin, hogskinfree!
It's not that you don't agree with me. It's that you are obviously crazy. Anyone who sees a fleeting budget deal as the continuation of a crisis that, apparently, began in 1920 is obviously delusional.I am only engaging you at this point because I like to talk to loons. On some level, it's fun.
Weigel Whines: "Boehner Wins, Austerity Wins, and the Social Conservatives Go Home With A 'Participant' Trophy"Klein Snivels: "This is a bad deal. And the way Democrats are selling it makes it much, much worse."Ahhhhhhh. The sweet, sweet nectar of leftard lamentations. ;)
"It's that you are obviously crazy. Anyone who sees a fleeting budget deal as the continuation of a crisis that, apparently, began in 1920 is obviously delusional."What?With whom are you having a conversation?Nothing stated there is related to anything I've said.Put your tinfoil hat back on. Or, go flame Placeholder, because the two of you have conversations on the edge of the universe.You are not talking with me. You are talking with yourself. Go back in your hole. Good night, genius.WV: hailyzI dun talked to a genius. Hailyz!
Read more Edward Gibbon and you might find that the transition of the once wonderful U.S. of A. was begun 100 years ago. Blood in the streets was begun 90 years ago. It's only going to play itself out for the next 200 years.You are right. I shouldn't make reasonable inferences based on the screeds of loons.
Boehner's days as Speaker are numbered.Considering this Congress doesn't end until December 31, 2012; and that Democrats have at least tacitly admitted that they're not even going to try retaking the House the chances of Boehner leaving the Speakership for any reason other than personal ones for at least the next 4 years are pretty much slim and none.The unrealistic and completely short-sighted might criticize Boehner for not holding out for the full $100 million, but that completely ignores the fact that there are much bigger battles ahead and that there is NO prayer of winning them if he managed to convince all but the most die-hard fantasists that he was going to act like a petulant child and stamp his feet demanding something he had no prayer of EVER getting this time.You have some kind of otherworldly fantasy that Republicans wouldn't have been tossed out on their ears in 2012 if they had simply stuck their fingers in their ears and stamped their feet until they got a full $100B this time around? If so, then you simply aren't dealing in reality. The general public is just now waking up to the debt crisis this country faces, and it's too early in that process to shift it into high gear and jam it down their throats right away. Like it or not, this is going to be a step-by-step, proverbial turning up the heat under the frog in a pot of water. Yeah. We have a problem today. And this didn't solve the whole thing in one fell swoop. It was NEVER going to. The big fight is going to be over Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. THAT is where the dollars are, not in discretionary spending. Blowing your entire credibility wad over a few billion dollars would have been the most incredibly stupid thing possible when there are TRILLIONS to be dealt with that Democrats are going to demagogue to death.You think it was bad when Pelosi claimed that 6 million senior citizens were going to go hungry because a program that provides meals to 2 million of them MIGHT have gotten cut? You ain't seen nothing yet. And you think the entirety of the American public is immune to such claims or is well-educated enough to know what a lying liar Pelosi was when she said it. Like the media won't do its part to cover for those lies?If you really believe these things, then you aren't ready for adult politics in the real world where you have to have to actually deal with the consequences of your short-sighted prescriptions.What good would it do to beat Obama in 2012 if we lost Congress in a public revulsion because we acted like children in the first budget confrontation? And what are the odds of winning the presidency when majorities are turning out to vote out Republican congressmen?What are the chances for REAL reform with Obama still in the White House or Democrats in control of Congress? You think that the Speaker of the House is some kind of miracle worker that can singlehandedly override a presidential veto?Good luck with that magical thinking.
"You are right. I shouldn't make reasonable inferences based on the screeds of loons. "A Gibbon is not a Loon. WV: scressoNothing to go with that other than 7nachos been scressoning some serious booze tonight. Because he is writing crazy scresso crazy scresso.
from Kent's link to Ezra Klein:Boehner, of course, could afford to speak plainly. He’d not just won the negotiation but had proven himself in his first major test as speaker of the House. He managed to get more from the Democrats than anyone had expected, sell his members on voting for a deal that wasn’t what many of them wanted and avert a shutdown. There is good reason to think that Boehner will be a much more formidable opponent for Obama than Gingrich was for Clinton.But yeah...go ahead and threaten that Boehner's "days are numbered." Any other brilliant observations you'd like to make?
There is good reason to think that Boehner will be a much more formidable opponent for Obama than Gingrich was for Clinton.Newt Gingrich was and remains the most tone deaf and silly politician in my lifetime. Smart? Sure. World-class huckster? Absolutely. But a terrible, terrible politician. And Clinton was a good one. So no surprise how 1994 turned out.In fact, Gingrich only became Speaker was because so many clowns like him got unexpectedly elected in 1994, as Clinton made many, many mistakes his first two years but nobody thought the midterm drubbing would be so bad. All of the clownery of those clowns, by the way, and their inability to be conservative, led to Obama in 2008, by the way. Or perhaps it started in 1910 and was prophesied by Edward Gibbon. Who can say?Anyway, Jim, exceptional posts.
Excuse me. How 1996 turned out.
Any other brilliant observations you'd like to make? Sure. They're working overtime to make a loser look like a winner. Especially the liberals because Boehner turned out to be a gift from political kindergarten, a weepy rube who just got his clocked cleaned.So, let's count his numbered days together. Because it won't be long before he's spending much more time with his family.
Especially the liberals because Boehner turned out to be a gift from political kindergarten, a weepy rube who just got his clocked cleaned.Really. Obama was all proud of himself because he was going to FREEZE spending. The budget he just agreed to is $78.5 billion LESS than that. PLUS, he had to agree to multiple audits of ObamaCare which his administration has been fighting: of the waivers HHS has been issuing while denying FOIA requests, no funding for IRS agents to implement it, producing the results of the "cost effectiveness/death panels" research that has been produced to date, etc. All of the information that Obama has been DESPERATELY trying to hide until after the 2012 election. Plus all the other little things.And you are moronic enough to think that BOEHNER was the one who just got his clock cleaned?Are you REALLY this stupid or do you just play a dunce on the internet?
Can anyone provide evidence that WEEPY Boehner is costing the Republicans among swing voters?
Ali -- Let's think this through. 1. Both sides wanted to avoid a shutdown because the risk of being faulted for it is devastating.2. Therefore, both sides wanted to compromise.3. In a compromise, you don't get 100 percent of what you want. Fair is 40 to 60 percent.I don't see how you could disagree with any of those statements.I'll add a fourth, which is up for debate but is my take on things: this abortion shit is absolutely out of left field and has nothing to do with anything meaningful. Therefore, what is actually going on is that Democrats (and possibly Republicans, too) threw it up as this all-important thing precisely so that other things could be given away. Ultimately, though, the important thing to remember is that you don't lose if you get some of what you want.
Planned Parenthood was not a simple rider, much less an expendable bargaining chip. Planned Parenthood has become a money laundering outfit for the Democrats. Just like the government unions.The abortion language was bullshit. Boehner caved, and now the table is set for the 2012 budget - because he's given away the store and got nothin' but some cheap face-time in return.Boehner and the rest of those old-school back slappers think the Tea Party was/is a joke. But hey, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Speaker Boehner will survive till summer. Even, maybe, possibly, September. But I wouldn't give 5-cents for his chances.
Ali -- When will you realize that abortion is a cash cow for both sides and little else?
Just got back from the save rite. Two bottles of 1.5 litre Merlot in hand..7dipshit has beem drinkin' so much he states:"Ali -- When will you realize that abortion is a cash cow for both sides and little else? "Isn't that what I said in different words? or are you too drunk to think your thesis for night through to fruition?Dumb@ss.WV: subsi:PUT YOUR TINFOIL HAT ON CONSERVATIVE FAKER IDIOT SUBSI TOOL TEABAGGER LIAR RACIST. YOU'RE SO OBVIOUS LOONEY TOONES SUBSI WHACKO.uratard
Douche -- If it was all sarcasm and I missed it, then I'm an idiot and I apologize profusely. I still don't get it, though.
I guess cutting the deficit by 2% is better than cutting it by 0%. But not much better.I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Republicans compromised on economic issues in order to score a meaningless win on abortion.
The adults are winning!
Obama signs on to budget cuts.Obama drinks the Tea!
I have to agree with vicki from pasadena --Yay!!!!Since the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women, this is a good thing. We should all help fund any programs that eliminates blacks. Right?
Lincolntf said..."Primary any one who votes for this."You're positing giving Obama and the Dems a huge electoral advantage, exactly what they're hoping for. Just register and vote as a Dem and you'll do far less damage to the country.RINO wisdom.The only reason they even got 40 bil was because RINOs were primaried and the Tea Partiers have pushed demands that spending be cut.Without the primary fights, there would have been no cuts. And 60 was supposed to be the drop-dead figure.
Andrew Sullivan Schools [Bill] Maher and [Eliot] Spitzer on Budget, ObamaCare and Paul RyanYes... that Andrew Sullivan. Believe it or not.
"Shutdown averted."And now it is clear for all to see that Republicans and the Democrats have joined together to destroy the country.Republicans are funding Planned Parenthood to keep the abortion machine functional.Republicans are funding National Public Radio, which ONLY employs Democrats and serves as a Democrat Party government propaganda service.Republicans are funding efforts to enact gay marriage and force military personnel to shower with homosexuals.Republicans are funding gnat fart studies which ONLY accrue to the benefit of the Democrats - which control our nation's colleges and universities.Republicans are funding the Department of Energy - which PREVENTS American oil drilling.Republicans are funding the Department of Education - which exists ONLY to funnel money to Democrat Party union criminals.Republicans have agreed to let Democrats borrow $1.5 trillion this year to fund Democrat spending that mostly benefits Democrat constituencies.Republicans have completely caved on the national debt and will soon agree to raise it even higher.This deal represents the total and complete destruction of the Republican Party.The Republican Party is useless and it is dead to me now.I will never vote for another Republican and I will never donate another dime to the Republican Party.Fuck them all.
Ut -- The Republicans control exactly one out of the three government entities that control the budget. That's 33 percent.What kind of deal were you hoping for? Or are things like facts and reality not what you want to deal with?I suspect the latter.
my favorite commenter, AllenS, as usual nails it with only a few words--good job sir
"The Republicans control exactly one out of the three government entities that control the budget. That's 33 percent."Machos ... you really need a civics lesson, dude.The Republicans control 100% of the government entities that control the federal budget.Because Republicans control the House of Representatives, from which all federal appropriations originate. NO money can be spent by the Senate, or the White House, without a bill first emanating from the Repbulican-controlled House of REpresentatives.It is ONLY because of Republican voting that we are now running the largest deficit in our nation's history.So, please, sir, if you intend to engage on this issue, then do just a modicum of research first."What kind of deal were you hoping for?"Republicans are currently borrowing $1.6 trillion to fund spending on Democrat Party priorities such as abortion, women's studies departments, NPR, etc. The list is endless.I'm looking for the deal we were promised when we sent these people to Washington, D.C.They were sent there to ELIMINATE this bullshit spending that ONLY supports Democrats.If Republicans can't do that, then what use are they?I bet Tea Party candidates could do that ... so I'll be donating ONLY to Tea Party candidates and ONLY voting for Tea Party candidates.Because Republicans are working WITH Democrats. Voting for Republicans is just the same as voting for Democrats.So I won't support them and will do everything in my power to make sure Republicans can't win elections going forward - even if that means Democrats win them in the short term.We need a longer-term solution and that may mean allowing the Democrats a short-term advantage.But we have to destroy the Republican Party now.
It's difficult to argue that this is a win for the Democrats. They prevented the GOP from cutting funds to PP, sure, but they gave up opposition to cuts just to keep the status quo? Sounds like a loss to me, since they didn't actually, you know, *gain* anything.It makes me wonder if the GOP put those cuts in just to give themselves something to remove to let the Dems save face. I know some Republicans feel strongly about it, but it's not a lot of $$$ in the grand scheme of things.In any case, multiply the cuts by 10, then get back to me. Otherwise, this is chump change.
NO money can be spent by the Senate, or the White House, without a bill first emanating from the Repbulican-controlled House of REpresentatives.The Senate must receive a majority vote in the Senate. It must be signed by the President. What's your point?The rest of your post is fantastic twaddle. I assume we'll see a lot of similar invective in the future. Sad.Up thread, the idea of "primarying" Republicans who voted for this would be good in places where Republicans win no matter who they put up. But in competitive districts, it's absurd. You have to win the middle to win. Otherwise, you are out in the political wilderness shouting.Finally, this hideously huge government and debt was not built in a day. Gradual reform is the only reform. And moderation and tranquility is what any decent conservative must stand for above all else. If you want to kill Medicaid, just for example, without something meaningful ready to replace it, you are merely instituting Obama's death panels by other means.
"The Republicans control 100% of the government entities that control the federal budget."This is not even remotely true. Budgets must be approved by the Senate and the White House. Budget bills originate in the House, but they go through the same basic process every bit of legislation does. The House has at best a moderate increase of power over the other branches and the Senate when it comes to budgets.It's also worth noting that if the Democrats had passed a budget last fall as they ought to have, none of this crap over continuing resolutions would be happening. Republicans in the House are not in a great position to argue for cuts right now. They could be doing better, but the Dems made sure of this by deliberately not passing a budget last fall. The entire current debate is a result of political maneuvering designed to put the Republican House at a disadvantage. It is only partially working.
The deal, in perspective:The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is currently spending $119 BILLION per week - mostly to support the Democrat Party and its friends in the unions, universities and in government offices around the country.That's $119 billion PER WEEK of spending.Republican John Boehner met with Democrats in the dead of night last night after everyone had gone to bed and secretly agreed with Democrats to "cut" federal spending by the amount we spend in just 2.2 days.And he's considered some kind of hero?In reality though, federal spending won't be cut. Republicans will shortly approve federal spending vastly more THIS YEAR than LAST YEAR. Taxing Americans VASTLY MORE this year than Republicans taxed Americans last year.Federal spending is actually going to go up.Not down.Republican taxes collected will go UP.Not down.If you want your spending cut, and your taxes cut ... then don't vote Republican because Republicans are HELPING Democrats keep spending high and tax collections high.
It's also worth noting that if the Democrats had passed a budget last fall as they ought to have, none of this crap over continuing resolutions would be happening. Republicans in the House are not in a great position to argue for cuts right now. They could be doing better, but the Dems made sure of this by deliberately not passing a budget last fall. The entire current debate is a result of political maneuvering designed to put the Republican House at a disadvantage. It is only partially working.This. ALL of it.
"When will the Chamber of Commerce stop spending millions and millions supporting only Republican candidates?"Gee Vicki,People who produce goods and services and create jobs with hard work, intelligence, and creativity are morally and practically equivalent with people who suck unborn children out of the womb, and with taxpayer dollars?BTW, I don't have a dog in the abortion fight (vaguely pro-choice, but too old to care that much). I am more intrigued with liberal fundamentalists' skewed view of the world.wv = foryoth; Go forth and learn my child.
"The Senate must receive a majority vote in the Senate. It must be signed by the President. What's your point?"My point is that you don't even know basic civics. Because earlier, you claimed that Republicans controlled only 33% of the institutions which control the budget. And that's just laughable.The Republicans control all federal spending because the Senate can't vote on a bill that doesn't come from House Republicans.All federal spending STARTS in the House. And the Senate can either vote for it or against it. If the Senate changes anything, then Republicans in the House Conference committee then control 100% of the outcome.So, the federal spending disaster now is ONLY because Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to waste all our money.Republicans are now to blame for this mess.Because they control the money.So, if you're pissed off at federal spending, then you shouldn't vote for Republicans - since they just joined with Democrats to keep spending high.
Ut, it would be easier for the Republicans to demand larger cuts if there were an actual budget in effect, and they weren't on an artificial deadline imposed by Democratic Party idiocy left over from when they controlled both houses. As it is, the lack of a budget is the controlling factor. Given that the Democrats could easily have passed whatever budget they wanted last year--and didn't--it's impossible to expect much more cutting from the Republicans right now. This threat of a shutdown was engineered last fall, just before the elections.Eventually the Republicans will force a full budget vote and we'll be able to talk about real cuts. Until then, I'm content with the incrementalism. Obama wanted a freeze. We're getting small cuts. The debate has changed dramatically since last fall. As much as I would love $500b in cuts, I can at least recognize the political realities.
"All federal spending STARTS in the House. And the Senate can either vote for it or against it."Yes. And so far the Democracts have refused to vote on the Republican plans in the Senate. Do you even know this, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
The sellout - in perspective:Fox News: "On side issues — "riders," the negotiators called them — the Democrats and the White House rebuffed numerous Republican attempts to curtail the spending of the Environmental Protection Agency. They also sidetracked their demand to deny federal funds to abortion clinics. Under the accord, the abortion issue will come to a vote in the Senate under terms guaranteed to end in its defeat."Harry Reid was ecstatic about the Democrat victory. "This is historic, what we've done," said a beaming Reid.
Who has called Boehner an idiot? You are way too caught up in politics. Did you expect the Republican House to solve the budget disaster that has been at least 50 years in the making in a few few months?
"Yes. And so far the Democrats have refused to vote on the Republican plans in the Senate."That's their choice. That's their right.Republicans can pass a budget out of the House and then the Senate gets to vote yes or no on it or suggest changes that the Republicans can reject.If they vote no, then the bill doesn't ever get to the President.That's how it works.So Republicans control all the spending (remember, this is how we forced Democrats to cancel their plans to bring the terrorists to New York for trials)If Democrats vote down the spending, then the wasteful spending doesn't ever occur.That's how you cut a budget, see.If, on the other hand, Republicans INCLUDE abortion spending and NPR spending and other wasteful spending in the budget that comes from the House, then I can hardly support them in the next election.It is the OMNIBUS nature of federal budgeting that gives Democrats their power.That must change and the only way to change that is to first destroy the Republican Party.So that's what we're going to be forced to do.It's sad, really, but what choice did they leave us?
"Did you expect the Republican House to solve the budget disaster that has been at least 50 years in the making in a few few months?"Yes.Since that's what we sent them there to fucking do.But if they can't do that (and it is apparent they're not even trying to do it), then we need to form a political party that WILL do it.In a $6.2 trillion federal budget, cutting $38 billion is BULL SHIT. It's trivial. A rounding error.That's not a cut. That's FLUFF. Democrats and Republicans are WORKING TOGETHER now to bankrupt our country and to enslave our children to massive federal deficits.We have to DESTROY the Republican Party to keep them from working with the Democrats to FUCK US OVER.It has to be utterly destroyed.
Ut -- The man said the Senate refused to vote on the budget. The Senate would continue not voting and the government would shut down due to lack of funding.What part do you not understand? Do you really think that Bob and Judy Taxpayer in Akron are going to side with you when Tom Brokaw tells them the government shut down and it's all the fault of evil Republicans? Really?Get over it. The side that says it is happy when there is a compromise is the side that lost in the compromise. Your own life experience will affirm this fact.
"The man said the Senate refused to vote on the budget."That's their right. That's how our system works.Just because Senators claim - claim - they will refuse to vote on a budget passed out of the House does not mean Republican voters must fund sinful abortions.Republicans should send the Senate a bill and let the Senate either vote on it or not vote on it.Capitulating to their demands is called FUCKING LOSING.I won't vote for a party of FUCKING LOSERS, dude.
"Get over it."I have no intention of getting over it. Instead, I'm going to act on my convictions and participate in Democracy to try to get any Republicans who vote for this bill OUT OF OFFICE as soon as possible.So let's get to the voting part so we can get our list going of Republicans we need to remove from the Congress.We don't have to settle for two political parties joining together to fuck us over.We can and will form a third party.Will Democrats benefit from that in the short-term? Probably. But we are left with no other alternative.
Ut -- The Senate wasn't going to vote. The government was going to shut down. The agreement — negotiated by the new Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, the president and the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid — came as the administration was poised to shutter federal servicesAgain, what do you not understand? The Senate ignored the House and the government was going to run out of money to spend in a few hours.You are mad. I understand that. But your anger is no excuse for stupidly failing to understand facts.
We don't have to settle for two political parties joining together to fuck us over.In a winner-takes-all system such as ours that is not parliamentary, it seems that we do.
Great.The robbers finally figured out how to split up the loot-As a matter on intellectual honesty, no one should be referring to the cuts and the budget in the same breath.It doesn't touch the budget.It doesn't even sniff the annual budget deficit.It is 3% of the 2011 budget DEFICIT.
When it comes to government spending Democrats are like gas guzzlers.Maybe Obama ought to trade in his party for one that models conservation and sustainability.
"Republicans should send the Senate a bill and let the Senate either vote on it or not vote on it."My god, he hasn't been paying attention *at all* if he can say this with anything close to a straight face. He very clearly has no clue how things work.
Vicky, does the Chamber of Commerce suck at the government teat like PP? Corrrupt democrats give PP money in exchange for political contribution. The Chamber has to donate to keep from getting screwed by government regulation. Are you unaware that businesses employ people and pay taxes? Screw business and you screw the engine that runs economy.
"RINO wisdom"Oh, fuck off with that "RINO" shit. You want the Republicans to spend all of their time and money opening up seats for Dems, rather than trying to beat them. What kind of wisdom is that? Get it through your head that some people in some States just don't agree with you (or the GOP) on everything, but are still willing to vote for a Republican if he appeals to the local sensibilities (generally some social issue crap). Playing the "purer than thou" game is just fucking stupid.
"The Senate ignored the House and the government was going to run out of money to spend in a few hours."Bullshit.You either believe that, in which case you're a fucking moron, or you know it's not true, in which case you're the problem.We have a $1.6 trillion deficit that will be handed off to our children and yet the Department of the Interior is advertising to hire a person to run their Facebook page for $115,000 a year.Do you not understand the problem?The government was NOT about to shut down. That's merely the media crisis that was devised to allow the spending to continue.And you're irresponsible for peddling such fucking nonsense.
"The robbers finally figured out how to split up the loot."This is precisely what is going on. Republicans AND Democrats have privately agreed to split the proceeds.Neither of these two political parties ever has any desire to actually reduce federal spending.That's why we have to DESTROY the Republican Party and replace it with the Tea Party.Democrats may well benefit in the short-term by this tactic, but it is the only way to achieve our political goals.
"It is 3% of the 2011 budget DEFICIT."Precisely. This amount of money - even if it were a cut, which it isn't - is so small as to be inconsequential even if we accept at face value that it represents a reduction in federal spending (which it doesn't).The Republicans have completely capitulated to the Democrat Party and they're both in on the theft.We need to fucking destroy them. They're on THE. OTHER. SIDE.
Ut, you realize the democrats wanted to shut government down to use it as a talking points beacause they are out of ideas? It worked for WJC. The tea party considers overspending to be the most important moral issue for country. PP took a major hit on its creditibility with the expose of their political support of dems in exchange for cash. Cutting off money for abortion of black babies in DC makes sense. Baby steps, yes, but giant steps later. As willie Sutton would say, Medicare, Medicaid and SS are where the money is.
"Ut, you realize the democrats wanted to shut government down to use it as a talking points beacause they are out of ideas?"Yes, I realize this.But let's put it another way: Democrats are willing to shut the government down if they can't get what they want.That's a pretty tough negotiating position. It's ballsy.Republicans however are UNWILLING to do the same. Republicans, which allegedly stand for limited government, are NOT WILLING to shut the government down to cut spending. But Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes.Now ... which party do you want to belong to? The party willing to go to the mat for your beliefs ... or the Republican Party which is UNWILLING to do what is necessary to get the J.O.B. done?I'm done with the Refailagains.
"The tea party considers overspending to be the most important moral issue for country."That's because EVERYTHING flows from the spending.The Democrats have built a system over the last 40 years that uses taxpayer dollars to support the Democrat Party.Now, Republicans are either unable to grasp that concept, or they are unwilling to do what is necessary to destroy that system.As the system currently is configured, ONLY Democrats benefit. And so we need a party dedicated to the eliminiation of the supports that hold up that system.And that is the money. Always the money.It's not that we're against GOVERNMENT. We all realize that a government is a good and necessary thing.What we are against is seeing our tax dollars put into the pockets of DEMOCRATS through mandatory union dues, government union shakedowns, bullshit research in the universities, and the billions being used to murder little black children at our nation's abortion factories.None of that would be possible if Republicans just refused to fund it.But they are UNWILLING to refuse to fund Democrats. Now why would that be?
Whiny bitches. You didn't get all that you wanted (which was never a possibility anyway) so you'll quit and run home to Mommy. Grow a fucking pair and realize that there will NEVER be an end to the differences in politics and you will NEVER get a complete victory. Children.
Ut - Quite frankly, you're being completely irrational.Rationality demands that more than just "what feels good today" dictate your decision-making. What you're talking about might feel GREAT to someone who understands what a fiscal mess this country is in. But the sad REALITY is that most people don't.In case you hadn't noticed, attitudes like yours are the ones which put Obama and the Democrats in charge - with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - in 2008. "They didn't give me 100% of what I wanted, so I'm willing to work to bring them down."That's not an adult attitude. My 3-year old daughter knows that attitude is not only not effective but completely counterproductive. How is that you're old enough to type and still haven't learned it yourself?By all means, work for bigger cuts in May when the debt limit comes up for a vote. Work for bigger cuts when the FY2012 budget is being debated. Work for bigger cuts when presented with ELECTABLE opponents in the primary. NO ONE is saying "DON'T WANT MORE."But you're just acting like a child. And a very, very small one at that. You're mad because you didn't get everything you wanted today. This time. Right now. No matter what the long-term consequences. No matter how much it increased the odds of the EXACT OPPOSITE actually happening down the road when everyone who ISN'T exactly where you are politically votes against you and your ideology because YOU made it radioactive to support it.Politicians are human beings. They respond to both positive and negative feedback. The CORRECT response to this deal if you're ACTUALLY interested in what you CLAIM to be interested in and not just playing the "TRUE CONSERVATIVE" troll on the internet is this:"Hello, Mr/Mrs Congressmen. Thanks for getting as much as you could in this round. When you were elected, Democrats said you'd never cut ANYTHING and would just be more 'business-as-usual' and you proved them wrong.I'm still not satisfied with how much got cut, and I'm still going to hold your feet to the fire EVERY SINGLE time a budgetary matter is brought up. I will stand behind you when you have the courage to take on the big fights on Social Security and Medicare, and I won't let the Democratic lies stand when they claim you're trying to kill grandma.I'm still watching, but good job this go-round. Let's keep working for more."
More bullshit from our leaders. Finally passing LAST YEAR'S budget while cutting $38 billion from a over one trillion dollar deficit is historic all right. Historic, world class avoidance, incompetence and deception.
What does government funding of Planned Parenthood have to do with abortion rights?Exactly nothing. The issue is federal funding of abortion.
It's come out that Joe Biden made John Boehner cry. He told the Speaker that Planned Parenthood was off the table. Period. Or else.Nancy Pelosi comforted John, using Harry Reid's hanky. She held him in her arms, gently, lovingly, until Barack whispered to John, you're a good boy, and soon John was fine.The End
UT - Quite frankly, you're being completely irrational.No, you're being completely condescending and foolish... if I may.UT has explained quite thoroughly how the branches of our government work, how the current two party system lies and connives, and what we must do to fix it.And you say, "My 3-year old daughter knows..."Well, let her balance your checkbook. And let us run Boehner and his back-slapping cronies out of Washington on a rail.
Ut - it's too early for vituperations.
"UT has explained quite thoroughly how the branches of our government work, how the current two party system lies and connives, and what we must do to fix it."No, UT has made a fool of himself for not understanding either what has already been happening in Washington over the last few months, and not understanding how the budget process works and why we're in the situation we find ourselves. Anyone who thinks that the House has absolute control over the budget needs to take some intro American government classes.
My math was horribly wrong earlier. Shouldn't post early in the morning.
"Anyone who thinks that the House has absolute control over the budget needs to take some intro American government classes."The House has 200% complete control of the language in all appropriations bills. That's how Republicans forced Eric Holder to cancel Obama's plan to bring terrorists to to New York City.Without money, Democrats can't do SHIT. And Republicans control all the money because Republicans control the House.There is no such thing as a "budget." That's media nonsense and shorthand. What exists are appropriations bills which allocate the money taken in by taxes. These bills ALL originate in the House of Representatives. NPR can't get funding UNLESS Republicans FIRST okay that funding. Democrats claim they won't vote on any bills in the Senate UNLESS they get everything they want. And maybe that's true. But maybe it's a bunch of horseshit.Republicans have to LET THEM refuse to vote on bills, or what good is there in having a Republican Party?If the Democrats can ALWAYS get what they want by threatening to shut the government down ... then why do we need a Republican Party?I don't need a party UNWILLING to implement my political beliefs and the Republicans are NOT WILLING to shut the government down in order to FORCE Democrats to cut government spending.
The Boehner capitulation, in perspective: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.US federal debt was $14.2101 trillion on March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and $14.2642 on April 7.Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-jumped-54-billion-8-days-precedingRepublicans have joined Democrats to ensure that federal spending is kept at OBSCENE and unsustainable levels.
Dude -- The House cannot pass any bill without the Senate and the President. The Democratic-controlled Senate was going to let the federal government shut down.Also, your fulminations about appropriations are ridiculous. If my car payment is $500 a month and I don't pay, I lose the car. It doesn't matter that I have $1000 in savings.You don't understand politic. Or economics. Stop beating your head against the wall. At least here. It's unbecoming.
"The Democratic-controlled Senate was going to let the federal government shut down."No, they weren't.That was just their negotiating tactic. Which worked like a charm to convince Republicans to join Democrats in keeping federal spending at unsustainable and irresponsible levels.The House should pass a budget and send it to the Senate. It has not done that. An agreement in principal has been made that reduces Obama's irresponsible spending request. No real cut was made ... just the Obama increase in federal spending was ever-so-slightly reduced.We still have a $1.5 trillion deficit now and for as far as the eye can see.The House should send the Senate a budget and if the Senate doesn't want to pass it so be it. I believe they will pass it because that's the only way they'll get the money.We sent Republicans to Washington, D.C. to end the corrupt money laundering that sees taxpayer money end up in Democrat Party campaign coffers.If current Republicans cannot manage to out-maneuver Democrats on this issue then we don't really need Republicans.Republicans simply cannot allow a system to exist where Democrats can merely threaten to shut down the government if they don't get their irresponsible and immoral spending.If Republicans cannot change that system, then we don't need these fucking Republicans.We will need patriots.
Ut -- You remind me for all the world of the observation by Whittaker Chambers in his review of Atlas Shrugged: "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber — go!"
"'To a gas chamber — go!"Macho, are you so bereft of any cogent argument in favor of your weak position that all you have left is a pathetic wish that I be gassed?
Boehner's capitulation, in perspective:Mickey Kaus: "It looks like a tacit conspiracy of Washingtonians not to sacrifice the jobs of any of their friends, or the local economy, by any kind of actual slimming down (of the sort a private company in similar straits would have undertaken years ago). … In effect, the respectable ‘pivot to entitlements’ position says,'we’re going to cut Social Security checks and Medicare for mid-income old people to save the jobs of $180K equal opportunity officers at the DOT.' … Why not wring the fat out of government first?”Republicans are being rolled (or worse, are tacitly in on the conspiracy that Mr. Kaus references).
Clearly, dude, your problem is reading comprehension. Fix that and everything changes.
Post a Comment