Azazello1313 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 The engine battle divides along regional rather than party lines don't tell that to ursa, according to him this is THE question that determines whether the republicans are serious or not. don't get me wrong, I completely agree that this is the sort of thing that needs to be cut. but it's kinda amazing how in some peoples' eyes, ALL of the onus for fiscal sanity is now on people like "boner", one month after the GOP gained control of half of congress. you wanna hold "boner's" feet to the fire? great. but if those are the only feet you're holding to the fire, your real motives are pretty transparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Plane parts voted out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) don't tell that to ursa, according to him this is THE question that determines whether the republicans are serious or not. don't get me wrong, I completely agree that this is the sort of thing that needs to be cut. but it's kinda amazing how in some peoples' eyes, ALL of the onus for fiscal sanity is now on people like "boner", one month after the GOP gained control of half of congress. you wanna hold "boner's" feet to the fire? great. but if those are the only feet you're holding to the fire, your real motives are pretty transparent. Again, Mr GOP Spinmeister, it was an interesting question as to the willingness to cut oneself as well as cut the other guy, something that is close to the root of the entire problem. Edited February 16, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Plane parts voted out Well Ursula? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I find it interesting that Obama commissioned a blue ribbon panel to tackle the debt, and then totally ignores their recommendations in his budget. BP, the way you constantly defend the guy, and try to shift the blame to the GOP is ridiculous. Both parties are to blame, but which was the last one to suggest significantly overhauling SS? Perch . . . I agree with you. Obama should create a budget all by his lonesome that directly cuts all spending to Medicare/medicaid.social security and defense spending. Lets say that cuts everything by half. Lets also overlook the point that this is only for a truncated 2011. I guess we also have to try and get over the fact that Social Security and Medicare as of 1997 are considered manadatory spending by permanent appropriations and that the the President CANNOT CHANGE THEM BY HIMSELF. Do you think that will pass? Obama is spineless for not following the recommendations of the panel that he convened. While the President only submits RECOMMENDATIONS for a budget that is them modified, passed by Congress and the Senate before being signed by the President, there is no argumnet that he could have gone further. There were some very good ideas in the fiscla comission that he isnt following. Either you are serious about that stuff, or you arent. While he does have a lot of cuts (and meekly gave into the GOP "hostage" demands on the tax cuts) there arent in enough major areas to make a difference. I really, really, really am looking forward to seeing the budget proposals from the GOP. It is standard for people of both parties (myself included) to automatically blame the other for not tackling the big stuff. Meanwhile nothing gets done. We are too busy pointing fingers to come up with solutions. I would have hoped that the GOP would have same awesome ideas after sitting out the last two years, and I cant wait to hear them. Obama absolutely holds the blame for not being more aggressive in his leadership on these issues. Now that he hasnt, I am looking forward to some strong leadership going after these entitlements and boondoggles by the Republican-led House after they repeal the 1997 BEA bill that makes SS and medicare/medicaid "untouchable" in the regular budget process. Congress needs to revisit the 1997 Budget Enforcement Act if everyone is looking for Obama to fix social security and medicare medicaid all by himself. Cause he doesnt have the authority to do so in his budget recommendations. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Plane parts voted out That shows real leadership. Except by the Speaker of the House that is . . . The engine was backed by some Republicans including House Speaker John Boehner, who argued it would save money over time and whose Ohio district is near a plant that would be threatened with job losses if the program were cut. Seeing fiscal conservatives break ranks with the GOP rank and file is a very positive step towards actual reform. I am glad this was ended. I wish the wasted money on the Osprey would also be eliminated. Steps in the right direction! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 More on the Boner jet engine George W Bush tried to cut this too. This is going to be a hugh test for the GOP new guys versus the GOP old guard. Plane parts voted out So, the engine the DoD didn't want got cut, thanks to the not-yet-corrupted freshmen. Good - first blood to the freshies. Boehner's excuse was more than somewhat weak, to say the least. "It will save money over time" translates as "it was in my back yard". Tough for him to continue being the front man for hack and slash when he's just transparently tried to retain unnecessary spending because it benefited him. Still, good decision. I wonder if the freshies will make similar decisions when they've been around the cesspool as long as Boehner has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 teachable moment President Obama’s 2012 budget plan went over like a lead balloon, and not just with Republicans. This week may be a teachable moment for the gentry liberals and Obamacons who swooned over Obama in 2008. They thought that someone so smart, so reasonable-sounding, so much like them would be the one to chart a course to fiscal sanity. They accepted the years of massive deficits during the recession. But by the 2012, he would finally start to put the budget on a path to a sustainable future, right? Instead, he ignored his own fiscal commission and punted on America’s entitlement crisis. As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted, Obama kicked the can again. Obama’s budget proposal is a remarkably weak and timid document. He proposes to cut only $1.1 trillion from federal deficits over the next decade — a pittance when you consider that the deficit this year alone is in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. The president makes no serious attempt at cutting entitlement programs that threaten to drive the government into insolvency. Andrew Sullivan said Obama’s budget was “deeply unserious.” Slate’s John Dickerson argued that Obama must be working on a secret plan because the one he released was so lame. Even if Obama is pursuing closed-door talks, it’s clear he’s unwilling to lead on the most important domestic policy issue of our generation. But Republicans are. Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and other top GOP lawmakers — vowed Tuesday to address entitlements in their 2012 budget plan. Talk is cheap, as Obama has made abundantly clear, but Ryan has been trying to have an “adult conservation” for years with his detailed “Road Map” to fiscal health. By punting on the budget, Obama may have done his country a service. He may be forcing many of his supporters, including in the media, to recognize that the latest crop of GOP leaders and rank-and-file members are the ones acting like grown-ups. The mainstream media likes to scoff at Tea Party activists as ignorant of budget policy — as if ordinary Americans are expected to be well-versed in entitlement spending. But anyone listening to Ryan knows he is a serious man. The same is true of Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Mitch Daniels of Indiana, just to name two others. If Obama had made even a fillip toward addressing long-term budget woes, he would have provided a plausible-sounding plan to a sympathetic media. Now it’ll be harder to blast coming GOP proposals as heartless and cruel to grandma. Because Obama was so timid, he provides an opening, however small, for the GOP to be bold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Again, Mr GOP Spinmeister, That's it, Az is really Ari Fleischer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 They accepted the years of massive deficits during the recession. But by the 2012, he would finally start to put the budget on a path to a sustainable future, right? Instead, he ignored his own fiscal commission and punted on America’s entitlement crisis. The lefties have nothing left to defend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 That shows real leadership. Except by the Speaker of the House that is . . . I have no problem with Boehner voting to keep it as long as he knew there were not enough vote to keep it. He gets to save face in his back yard while still not having a negative impact on the nation. I would have a huge problem if he voted to keep it, and it was kept by one vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I have no problem with Boehner voting to keep it as long as he knew there were not enough vote to keep it. He gets to save face in his back yard while still not having a negative impact on the nation. I would have a huge problem if he voted to keep it, and it was kept by one vote. So you dont have a problem with congressional leadership playing NIMBY games? Interesting . . . I seem to remember you having huge problems with NIMBY games being played with offshore wind farms . . . . A leader would have voted to end it becasue it would be the right thing to do, not to curry votes and play political games for the next election. This doesnt exactly differentiate him very well from the same crap people on the left have pulled to start his crusading tenure against wasteful Washington . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 So you dont have a problem with congressional leadership playing NIMBY games? Interesting . . . I seem to remember you having huge problems with NIMBY games being played with offshore wind farms . . . . A leader would have voted to end it becasue it would be the right thing to do, not to curry votes and play political games for the next election. This doesnt exactly differentiate him very well from the same crap people on the left have pulled to start his crusading tenure against wasteful Washington . . What do you expect from a guy that was criticized for handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to his colleagues right on the House floor? This guy is the status quo, pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I have no problem with Boehner voting to keep it as long as he knew there were not enough vote to keep it. He gets to save face in his back yard while still not having a negative impact on the nation. I would have a huge problem if he voted to keep it, and it was kept by one vote. Disagree big time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Disagree big time Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Disagree big time Perch seems to believe that when you buy a politician, he shouldn't even act like he hasn't been paid for. We should just do the Nascar jacket sponsorship type thing. That way you could easily look at a Senator and know where their funding comes from when they are running their yap. We do that and add this preamble, I think the world would be better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 thought this op-ed today was interesting... Washington and Lincoln—those birthday boys—ought to be smiling. The 112th House of Representatives spent the week debating how to fund the rest of fiscal 2011. In sharp contrast to his recent predecessors, Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his vow to make the chamber more open and accountable. His committee chairmen having presented a base spending bill, Mr. Boehner threw open the floor for full discussion. Some 600 amendments came pouring in. "Chaos," "a headache," "turmoil," "craziness," "confused," "wild," "uncontrolled" are just a few of the words the Washington press corps has used to describe the ensuing late-night debates. There's a far better word for what happened: democracy. It has been eons since the nation's elected representatives have had to study harder, debate with such earnestness, or commit themselves so publicly. Yes, it is messy. Yes, it is unpredictable. But as this Presidents Day approaches, it's a fabulous thing to behold. And about time. The Democrats' style of management—on ObamaCare, cap and trade, financial regulation, stimulus—was to secretly craft bills and ram through a vote, denying members a chance to read, to debate, to amend. They learned this from former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who infamously micro- managed his GOP majority from 2003-2005. The House had become a place where the leadership called all the shots and the majority saluted. But this week the country witnessed the House coming together to argue over and exercise its foremost responsibility: power over the purse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I would have hoped that the GOP would have same awesome ideas after sitting out the last two years, and I cant wait to hear them. Obama absolutely holds the blame for not being more aggressive in his leadership on these issues. Now that he hasnt, I am looking forward to some strong leadership going after these entitlements and boondoggles by the Republican-led House well, here you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 well, here you go. It is very informative that in Ryan's plan to fix the budget problems he still found room to lower taxes for the richest people in America. Well done, sir, well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 It is very informative that in Ryan's plan to fix the budget problems he still found room to lower taxes for the richest people in America. Well done, sir, well done. as far as I can tell, he is essentially following the bowles-simpson blueprint -- an approach economists of all stripes are on record supporting -- of reforming and simplifying the tax code by broadening the base (eliminating deductions and loopholes) and lowering rates. it is very informative that you would jump right in and start demagoguing on this tired old talking point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 well, here you go. Pretty good for the most part. Good for the GOP for going after tax code and eliminating corporate welfare by getting rid of deductions. I really didnt think they had the balls to do so. Of course . . this is just an op-ed with no concrete details, so hopefully this will actually occur. Of course by meaning "revenue neutral" they mean "the top end pays less and the bottom pays more". I would love to see how the new GOP budget scores a the CBO. If the Heritage Foundation is your source for "budget analysis" it will be as reliable as ACORN giving tax advice to hookers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Rep. Ryan’s House GOP Budget Plan Federal Government Would Collect $2 Trillion Less Over a Decade and Yet Require Bottom 90 Percent to Pay Higher Taxes http://ctj.org/pdf/ryanplan2010.pdf Has anyone else noticed that the current Repub strategy is to pit half of the people against the other half? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 http://ctj.org/pdf/ryanplan2010.pdf Has anyone else noticed that the current Repub strategy is to pit half of the people against the other half? Granted, that was over a year ago. Is Ryan's/GOP budget unchanged from then or are there differences? If not, then wow . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 http://ctj.org/pdf/ryanplan2010.pdf Has anyone else noticed that the current Repub strategy is to pit half of the people against the other half? And that varies from the dems strategy how? I for one would like to see every voter be a net tax payer. If that were to happen I guarantee there would be a whole lot less waste in government. It's real easy spending other people's money, but when it is yours that is being spent, you tend to be a little more selective on what it is spent on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 And that varies from the dems strategy how? I for one would like to see every voter be a net tax payer. If that were to happen I guarantee there would be a whole lot less waste in government. It's real easy spending other people's money, but when it is yours that is being spent, you tend to be a little more selective on what it is spent on. Wait...so I work for 20 years and then suffer a serious accident and can no longer work. Since I no longer have income, I am no longer a "net tax payer." Therefore, you want to remove my voting rights? Seems a little harsh to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.