Oh horse pebbles. This deadline is exactly the compromise which was reached. It was the only one they were able to arrive at. It is the law. This upcoming deadline has this one tremendous advantage which no other approach that you can imagine will have: The can stops here. You cannot kick it any farther down the road. The first step toward fiscal responsibility takes effect at a certain known specific date coming soon.
Let's review what happened: Obama wanted to spend another $2,400,000,000,000 which we didn't own a damned dime of. Taxed Enough Already on the right dug in. They said no more debt unless you sign a contract to reduce wastrel spending. No, no, no more endlessly kicking the can down the road. The Right demanded arithmetic now. The Left repudiates arithmetic. They have to. They buy votes with funny money. That's their lifeblood. The two sides compromised on this: $2,400,000,000,000 more debt immediately in return for a worthless promise to sit down and hammer out a way to raise taxes and reduce spending by what really is only a token amount nowhere near what ultimately needs to be done. If agreement could not be reached, then cuts and taxes would automatically take effect. The Left saw in that yet another chance to kick the can farther down the road again. Having gotten their debt immediately, they then refused to agree to any real spending reductions. The automatic was a year away. So that was it. That's what they came up with.
Now dial forward a year. Sure enough, the whole $2,400,000,000,000 has been squandered. Still no reductions. Obama'll be back in the next month or two clamoring to borrow another $2,500,000,000,000. Meanwhile, as the date nears when certain reductions are to take place as the agreed price on the last $2,400,000,000,000,, the Left wants to renege on their deal. Do they call it a Deadline for Adult Responsibility? No, they call it a Fiscal Cliff. Let's scare everyone. Let's act like we never agreed to this. Let's pretend that we can sit down again and this time we will deal with it realistically and responsibly.
What a load of BS. If you don't want to live up to the deal you made, then give us the money back. All $2,400,000,000,000. And interest.
I tell you it's like children afraid of the dentist. Yes, it's gonna be scary. Yes, the drill feels awful. Even the needle is a ***. Guess what? If you don't go to the dentist and get drilled, that stinky hole is only going to get worse. Son, buckle down, grow up, get your ass in the chair, and get started. Now.
Get it over with. Stop pretending like these idiots can deal with problems responsibly. Exactly what part of recent history persuades you that they can?
Look, a benevolent monarch could cut the budget in half in an afternoon. First, whack everything that has the word War in it. War on drugs, poverty, Islam, climate change, all of it. Next, stop everything that doesn't put product out the door. From Head Start to HUD. If it doesn't work just stop shoveling money at it. Third, stop every subsidy. From Gasohol to Elmo. Most importantly, dismantle Homeland Security and return some measure of our usurped liberties.
Where is that benevolent monarch? Is any of that going to happen? Any of it? Nope. No more than we are going to get our $2,400,000,000,000 back. No more than we are about to kick Goldman Sachs out of the cabinet or Covington & Burling out of the justice department.
Using Obama's own budget numbers, and you know what a preposterous liar he is with his numbers, but go ahead and use them ... By the time this fascist jackass is done with his BOHICA, we will be borrowing more to pay interest to banks on what we have already borrowed to squander on bullroar than we will be borrowing to spend on defense. I ask you this: Which of these two is the proper, essential, and responsible function of government: defending our country, or enriching bankers?
Let's do this. Start now. Let's roll.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
The reason we don't like this particular dentist is Europe went to the same guy, and came back without a jaw.
... and if we keep putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and adding more exhorbitant socialist schemes and more subsidies and more bureaucrats and putting it off and putting it off then we are going to be Greece without a Germany to bail us. This is not rocket surgery. It isn't even higher math. It's simple arithmetic. Spend more than you have you go broke. Do it long enough the banksters own you. That's where we are now. Do it much longer and no one will loan us money. You are not going to pull a magic rabbit out of a hat. Face facts.
BTW - Why doesn't that video embed code work any more?
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
The reason we don't like this particular dentist is Europe went to the same guy, and came back without a jaw.
... and if we keep putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and adding more exhorbitant socialist schemes and more subsidies and more bureaucrats and putting it off and putting it off then we are going to be Greece without a Germany to bail us. This is not rocket surgery. It isn't even higher math. It's simple arithmetic. Spend more than you have you go broke. Do it long enough the banksters own you. That's where we are now. Do it much longer and no one will loan us money. You are not going to pull a magic rabbit out of a hat. Face facts.
BTW - Why doesn't that video embed code work any more?
Europe has been imposing their version of sequestration, called austerity, and it has prolonged their recession, resulted in 25% to 35% un-employment, and an expotential increasing of debt because nobody can buy anything, which drives revenues down and drives the debt up. Business and corporate leaders and credible economist in the US DO NOT want sequestraton. It is a far-right, short-sighted ideological solution to an economic problem that will only make matters worse; and guess what; it aint happening. The business community is going to be pressuring the recaltriant ones in the House to wake up and smell the cofffee. If they send our economy over this cliff, there won't be a Tea Party left in the House of Representatives, and the Democrats will be swept back into power at the mid-term to pick up all the pieces again.
The reason we don't like this particular dentist is Europe went to the same guy, and came back without a jaw.
... and if we keep putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and adding more exhorbitant socialist schemes and more subsidies and more bureaucrats and putting it off and putting it off then we are going to be Greece without a Germany to bail us. This is not rocket surgery. It isn't even higher math. It's simple arithmetic. Spend more than you have you go broke. Do it long enough the banksters own you. That's where we are now. Do it much longer and no one will loan us money. You are not going to pull a magic rabbit out of a hat. Face facts.
BTW - Why doesn't that video embed code work any more?
Just to be clear, even though economists on both sides say it will kill what little recovery we have, Europe's recent issues show this to be true, your basic math will lead us through safely? To make it abundantly clear what I stand for, governments should spend and reduce burdons in a recession while saving and increasing revenue in times of plenty. Secondly, in two posts you have labeled Obama as a Socialist and a Fascist. These are opposite sides of an ideological spectrum. Which is it?
On the subject of embedding, seems to work for me. PICNIC error? :P
The reason we don't like this particular dentist is Europe went to the same guy, and came back without a jaw.
... and if we keep putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and putting it off and adding more exhorbitant socialist schemes and more subsidies and more bureaucrats and putting it off and putting it off then we are going to be Greece without a Germany to bail us. This is not rocket surgery. It isn't even higher math. It's simple arithmetic. Spend more than you have you go broke. Do it long enough the banksters own you. That's where we are now. Do it much longer and no one will loan us money. You are not going to pull a magic rabbit out of a hat. Face facts.
BTW - Why doesn't that video embed code work any more?
Europe has been imposing their version of sequestration, called austerity, and it has prolonged their recession, resulted in 25% to 35% un-employment, and an expotential increasing of debt because nobody can buy anything, which drives revenues down and drives the debt up. Business and corporate leaders and credible economist in the US DO NOT want sequestraton. It is a far-right, short-sighted ideological solution to an economic problem that will only make matters worse; and guess what; it aint happening. The business community is going to be pressuring the recaltriant ones in the House to wake up and smell the cofffee. If they send our economy over this cliff, there won't be a Tea Party left in the House of Representatives, and the Democrats will be swept back into power at the mid-term to pick up all the pieces again.
To be fair, both sides have their fair share of anti-compromise crazies, as evidenced in this recent interview.
....The business community is going to be pressuring the recaltriant ones in the House to wake up and smell the cofffee. If they send our economy over this cliff, there won't be a Tea Party left in the House of Representatives, and the Democrats will be swept back into power at the mid-term to pick up all the pieces again.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
Right. If the uncompormising Tea Party refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault. Right. I'm begining to believe that there is very real truth the complaints I'm hearing being leveled at the far right about their refusing to live in a fact based reality.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
Right. If the uncompormising Tea Party refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault. Right. I'm begining to believe that there is very real truth the complaints I'm hearing being leveled at the far right about their refusing to live in a fact based reality.
Correct. And if the uncompromising House Democrats and Senate refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault.
Compromise: When Republicans give into Democrats. Right?
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
Right. If the uncompormising Tea Party refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault. Right. I'm begining to believe that there is very real truth the complaints I'm hearing being leveled at the far right about their refusing to live in a fact based reality.
Correct. And if the uncompromising House Democrats and Senate refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault.
Compromise: When Republicans give into Democrats. Right?
com·pro·mise /'k?mpr??ma?z/ [kom-pruh-mahyz] noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing.
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
Therefore, compromise, by definition requires BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED to give ground. The Tea Party will have to give ground on taxes, which will have to be raised, the progressives will have to give ground on "entitlement" cuts, which will have to be made, and both sides will have to agree to defense spending cuts.
The progressives have already said that they are willing to discuss entitlement and defense spending cuts, but the Tea Party is still not willing to agree to raising taxes. That is why they are not willing to compromise, and may well force sequestration.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
Right. If the uncompormising Tea Party refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault. Right. I'm begining to believe that there is very real truth the complaints I'm hearing being leveled at the far right about their refusing to live in a fact based reality.
Correct. And if the uncompromising House Democrats and Senate refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault.
Compromise: When Republicans give into Democrats. Right?
com·pro·mise /'k?mpr??ma?z/ [kom-pruh-mahyz] noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing.
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
Therefore, compromise, by definition requires BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED to give ground. The Tea Party will have to give ground on taxes, which will have to be raised, the progressives will have to give ground on "entitlement" cuts, which will have to be made, and both sides will have to agree to defense spending cuts.
The progressives have already said that they are willing to discuss entitlement and defense spending cuts, but the Tea Party is still not willing to agree to raising taxes. That is why they are not willing to compromise, and may well force sequestration.
Yep. Its all very childish. Even the President hasn't shown any willingness to compromise. He says he'll listen.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
U do realize that the House is where the budget comes from right? They control the monies. Bohner isn't a "tea" bagger but he is controlled by them. Just watch how he came out after the election and talked about working together then the next day reverses his position. He is under huge pressure from the whack-a-doos primarily because he wants to keep his job. However there's reports that some GOPers are tired of the BS and might reverse their course. Also many of the new gop congresspeople aren't going to sigh grover norquists pledge on raising taxes.
Also the dems might control the senate but they don't have a super majority to bypass the GOP's BS. Let's also not forget that the supreme court is not held by the left. The right has the upper hand at the moment, which is why the corporate hand out called citizen united was passed.
The "baddie" as you put it is whoever tries to screw over progress. The GOP have been blocking any means of boosting the economy since Obama was elected but especially since 2010. I would once again list all the main one's but what's the point.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
Right. If the uncompormising Tea Party refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault. Right. I'm begining to believe that there is very real truth the complaints I'm hearing being leveled at the far right about their refusing to live in a fact based reality.
Correct. And if the uncompromising House Democrats and Senate refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault.
Compromise: When Republicans give into Democrats. Right?
com·pro·mise /'k?mpr??ma?z/ [kom-pruh-mahyz] noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing.
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
Therefore, compromise, by definition requires BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED to give ground. The Tea Party will have to give ground on taxes, which will have to be raised, the progressives will have to give ground on "entitlement" cuts, which will have to be made, and both sides will have to agree to defense spending cuts.
The progressives have already said that they are willing to discuss entitlement and defense spending cuts, but the Tea Party is still not willing to agree to raising taxes. That is why they are not willing to compromise, and may well force sequestration.
Yep. Its all very childish. Even the President hasn't shown any willingness to compromise. He says he'll listen.
That statement right there makes you really come off as someone who either only watches fox news and right blogs or someone who really doesn't know what they are talking about. This president has been all about compromise. Even after kicking butt in this election after all that has been said about him he still want's to give a hand in compromise. Just because Fox News says he's evil it doesn't mean it's true. I mean they had most of the GOP thinking Romney had a chance. lol.
The two parties are co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Well, of course you can. You can always blame George Bush. That's Liberalism 101. Jeez, where've you been the last four years.
If sequestration goes into effect, the Tea Party in the House of Representatives will be at fault and will be blamed, and will pay dearly at the polls for the pain and suffering they will have caused.
Tea Party: the new George Bush. ROTFLMAO. Time to come up for air JDH. You're getting delusional.
I truly think you are having trouble with basic reading comprehension, Beat. I never said or implied that the Tea Party was in any way connected to, or associated with, or represented by, or anything like "George Bush". How you came up with that conclusion requires either a trememdous feat of imagination, or delusion, or halucination, because it is completely in your head and has no connection to reality.
George bush is a liberal compared to the tea party.
You guys just have to find a baddie to point fingers at for every issue. YOU own the Presidency, Santa Clause, and administration. YOU control the Senate. YOU have the numbers in the Supreme Court. All the republicans have is control of the House. And it is run by Boehner, a long time republican and not affiliated with the Tea Party. And you're gonna blame the Tea Party? Wrong, sir. It is now your government. Any problems now are yours. And I'm I'm not just pointing fingers at the leaders. The uneducated electorate that put them into power are the real culprits. Just my opinion. Now, if problems don't get solved, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. That's just how it works. Have a nice day.
Right. If the uncompormising Tea Party refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault. Right. I'm begining to believe that there is very real truth the complaints I'm hearing being leveled at the far right about their refusing to live in a fact based reality.
Correct. And if the uncompromising House Democrats and Senate refuses to solve problems, and forces sequestration instead, then it's not their fault.
Compromise: When Republicans give into Democrats. Right?
com·pro·mise /'k?mpr??ma?z/ [kom-pruh-mahyz] noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing.
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
Therefore, compromise, by definition requires BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED to give ground. The Tea Party will have to give ground on taxes, which will have to be raised, the progressives will have to give ground on "entitlement" cuts, which will have to be made, and both sides will have to agree to defense spending cuts.
The progressives have already said that they are willing to discuss entitlement and defense spending cuts, but the Tea Party is still not willing to agree to raising taxes. That is why they are not willing to compromise, and may well force sequestration.
I don't think the "left" have said they want to do cuts to the big three, they are hugely opposed to it. I know they want to get rid of the SS cap and they are all about the defense cuts.
The prez should just let this thing happen then come back and lower taxes. The DOD needs to be cut more than what these cuts will do. The entire department needs to be taken a look at. No reason why we needs thousands of bases all around the world. And with that money fix this freaking country so it is out of the mid 20th century and move into the 21st century.
Guys, you think this thread may be getting out of hand a little. There is no need to be calling people delusional, or anything else for that matter. We are all men and women here and should be able to have a polite discusision without name calling and insults. People will believe what they want to believe and I feel they have the right to state their opinion without harrasment and constant belittling. Lets keep it civil.
Guys, you think this thread may be getting out of hand a little. There is no need to be calling people delusional, or anything else for that matter. We are all men and women here and should be able to have a polite discusision without name calling and insults. People will believe what they want to believe and I feel they have the right to state their opinion without harrasment and constant belittling. Lets keep it civil.
Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,....BEAT thats twice in less than a month. Things REALLY used to get bad here, I dont know that.......HOWEVER I WILL ASK AGAIN, while we can seemigly be picked out for this to tell us basically "hush children" why cant we get any response about the Forum Blend from months back? We fork out the dough here plenty, so wtf
Holy banter, Batman. Reprimanded again. Krebsie must be new around here. LOL. FYI. I only respond with ridicule when my good friends on the left ridicule and belittle those who aren't even here.
Guys, you think this thread may be getting out of hand a little. There is no need to be calling people delusional, or anything else for that matter. We are all men and women here and should be able to have a polite discusision without name calling and insults. People will believe what they want to believe and I feel they have the right to state their opinion without harrasment and constant belittling. Lets keep it civil.
Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,....BEAT thats twice in less than a month. Things REALLY used to get bad here, I dont know that.......HOWEVER I WILL ASK AGAIN, while we can seemigly be picked out for this to tell us basically "hush children" why cant we get any response about the Forum Blend from months back? We fork out the dough here plenty, so wtf
Comments
Let's review what happened: Obama wanted to spend another $2,400,000,000,000 which we didn't own a damned dime of. Taxed Enough Already on the right dug in. They said no more debt unless you sign a contract to reduce wastrel spending. No, no, no more endlessly kicking the can down the road. The Right demanded arithmetic now. The Left repudiates arithmetic. They have to. They buy votes with funny money. That's their lifeblood. The two sides compromised on this: $2,400,000,000,000 more debt immediately in return for a worthless promise to sit down and hammer out a way to raise taxes and reduce spending by what really is only a token amount nowhere near what ultimately needs to be done. If agreement could not be reached, then cuts and taxes would automatically take effect. The Left saw in that yet another chance to kick the can farther down the road again. Having gotten their debt immediately, they then refused to agree to any real spending reductions. The automatic was a year away. So that was it. That's what they came up with.
Now dial forward a year. Sure enough, the whole $2,400,000,000,000 has been squandered. Still no reductions. Obama'll be back in the next month or two clamoring to borrow another $2,500,000,000,000. Meanwhile, as the date nears when certain reductions are to take place as the agreed price on the last $2,400,000,000,000,, the Left wants to renege on their deal. Do they call it a Deadline for Adult Responsibility? No, they call it a Fiscal Cliff. Let's scare everyone. Let's act like we never agreed to this. Let's pretend that we can sit down again and this time we will deal with it realistically and responsibly.
What a load of BS. If you don't want to live up to the deal you made, then give us the money back. All $2,400,000,000,000. And interest.
I tell you it's like children afraid of the dentist. Yes, it's gonna be scary. Yes, the drill feels awful. Even the needle is a ***. Guess what? If you don't go to the dentist and get drilled, that stinky hole is only going to get worse. Son, buckle down, grow up, get your ass in the chair, and get started. Now.
Get it over with. Stop pretending like these idiots can deal with problems responsibly. Exactly what part of recent history persuades you that they can?
Look, a benevolent monarch could cut the budget in half in an afternoon. First, whack everything that has the word War in it. War on drugs, poverty, Islam, climate change, all of it. Next, stop everything that doesn't put product out the door. From Head Start to HUD. If it doesn't work just stop shoveling money at it. Third, stop every subsidy. From Gasohol to Elmo. Most importantly, dismantle Homeland Security and return some measure of our usurped liberties.
Where is that benevolent monarch? Is any of that going to happen? Any of it? Nope. No more than we are going to get our $2,400,000,000,000 back. No more than we are about to kick Goldman Sachs out of the cabinet or Covington & Burling out of the justice department.
Using Obama's own budget numbers, and you know what a preposterous liar he is with his numbers, but go ahead and use them ... By the time this fascist jackass is done with his BOHICA, we will be borrowing more to pay interest to banks on what we have already borrowed to squander on bullroar than we will be borrowing to spend on defense. I ask you this: Which of these two is the proper, essential, and responsible function of government: defending our country, or enriching bankers?
Let's do this. Start now. Let's roll.
BTW - Why doesn't that video embed code work any more?
On the subject of embedding, seems to work for me. PICNIC error? :P
Also, lots of out of context quoting there.
Warren Buffett On Fiscal Cliff: GOP Needs To Put 'Country Over Party'
Business Leaders Urge Deficit Deal Even With More Taxes
Paul Krugman On Fiscal Cliff: Republicans 'Holding America Hostage'
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
AND. YOU CAN'T BLAME GEORGE BUSH
I say let it happen. Can't just keep kicking this can.
Compromise: When Republicans give into Democrats. Right?
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
Therefore, compromise, by definition requires BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED to give ground. The Tea Party will have to give ground on taxes, which will have to be raised, the progressives will have to give ground on "entitlement" cuts, which will have to be made, and both sides will have to agree to defense spending cuts.
The progressives have already said that they are willing to discuss entitlement and defense spending cuts, but the Tea Party is still not willing to agree to raising taxes. That is why they are not willing to compromise, and may well force sequestration.
Also the dems might control the senate but they don't have a super majority to bypass the GOP's BS. Let's also not forget that the supreme court is not held by the left. The right has the upper hand at the moment, which is why the corporate hand out called citizen united was passed.
The "baddie" as you put it is whoever tries to screw over progress. The GOP have been blocking any means of boosting the economy since Obama was elected but especially since 2010. I would once again list all the main one's but what's the point.
The prez should just let this thing happen then come back and lower taxes. The DOD needs to be cut more than what these cuts will do. The entire department needs to be taken a look at. No reason why we needs thousands of bases all around the world. And with that money fix this freaking country so it is out of the mid 20th century and move into the 21st century.
Any takers?
That was prety civil wasn't it?
Vulch, you have a PM