|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
01-13-2013, 03:47 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by baconshorts
I expect them to follow the law. You do raise a good point. Why is the senate being irresponsible and not passing a budget?
|
They're not. They're rejecting irresponsible proposals from irresponsible juveniles.
Regards,
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-13-2013, 04:41 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Derby City U.S.A.
Posts: 8,176
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by baconshorts
That doesn't even make sense. I would cut in other areas first. However I choose to keep any interests payments I need to make well within my means to do so. In this way I prevent myself from having to make that choice.
|
The only areas the GOP wants to cut are the ones effecting the poor disproportionally. Defense spending if off the table. Just how bad does it have to get before the TP and the GOP realize this?
I keep hearing this crap, goes something like this. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." (Mr. B. Franklin) From the TP/GOP because they always are insinuating it is the poor, I see it as the wealthy doing it and blaming the poor. This current GOP is dead set on cutting any safety net in the name of balancing the budget on the backs of those that can least afford it.
Barney
|
01-13-2013, 04:54 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by baconshorts
Does calling them names bolster you argument (juveniles). Senator Reid can offer amendments to any revenue bill passed by the house. He and the senate refuse to do so. He does not want his democratic senators being subject to public scrutiny and therefore hides behind inaction, happy to promote unconstitutional executive orders.
|
Not really, but I find it is a fitting moniker.
And, no, you're wrong. If he favors executive order, it is only to circumvent an intransigent Republican house hellbent on obstructing the administration and the Democratic Senate at all costs.....for purely political purposes, good of the nation be damned.
Regards,
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-13-2013, 04:56 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerets
The only areas the GOP wants to cut are the ones effecting the poor disproportionally. Defense spending if off the table. Just how bad does it have to get before the TP and the GOP realize this?
I keep hearing this crap, goes something like this. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." (Mr. B. Franklin) From the TP/GOP because they always are insinuating it is the poor, I see it as the wealthy doing it and blaming the poor. This current GOP is dead set on cutting any safety net in the name of balancing the budget on the backs of those that can least afford it.
Barney
|
Hmmmm....I'm doing this a lot these days........+1, Barney.
Regards,
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-13-2013, 05:05 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by baconshorts
That doesn't even make sense. I would cut in other areas first. However I choose to keep any interests payments I need to make well within my means to do so. In this way I prevent myself from having to make that choice.
|
Sure it makes sense. When you sign a lease, it;'s for a certain term at a certain rent. When you sign up for utility service it's with the promise to pay for your usage on a set schedule.
When the House authorizes spending for a particular program it is constitutionally obligated under the 14th Amendment to pay the bill. Demanding that cuts be made to existing programs, also authorized by Congress, as a condition of meeting their financial obligations is the same as demanding a decrease in rent as a precondition to paying your utility bill.
John
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
01-13-2013, 05:41 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by baconshorts
Does calling them names bolster you argument (juveniles). Senator Reid can offer amendments to any revenue bill passed by the house. He and the senate refuse to do so. He does not want his democratic senators being subject to public scrutiny and therefore hides behind inaction, happy to promote unconstitutional executive orders.
|
He doesn't appear too happy or even sound happy in the story I linked to in the beginning of this thread. He seems fairly pissed off, actually. Maybe it's because of the newfound use of the Senate filibuster employed by the Repubs in the upper chamber of congress?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibus..._States_Senate
|
01-13-2013, 06:14 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Sure it makes sense. When you sign a lease, it;'s for a certain term at a certain rent. When you sign up for utility service it's with the promise to pay for your usage on a set schedule.
When the House authorizes spending for a particular program it is constitutionally obligated under the 14th Amendment to pay the bill. Demanding that cuts be made to existing programs, also authorized by Congress, as a condition of meeting their financial obligations is the same as demanding a decrease in rent as a precondition to paying your utility bill.
John
|
Makes sense to me.
Regards,
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-13-2013, 06:18 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
You know, I'd be all for cutting waste.
I just don't consider human beings-the poor and the elderly, to be "waste".
Now, the military?
I did just enough time in the military to know there is gobs of waste to be cut there.
But, one doesn't dare whisper of it, lest ye be accused of "attacking the troops"...by those whom I am certain profit handsomely from said waste.
With a nod to the 34th President.............
Regards,
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-13-2013, 06:39 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by baconshorts
Nope, I can do a lot of things to cut back on spending. Perhaps your household vs government budget analogy just doesn't work. Certainly if I decide to cancel my cable subscription folks do not loose services and I certainly not capable of just printing money.
|
If you were susidizing cable service for everyone and cut it, others would certainly lose, or at least see a reduction in service. It's YOUR analogy that doesn't work.
The things some want cut from the national budget are things that nearly every one of us will eventually use.....SS and Medicare.
That's the difference.
Regards,
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-13-2013, 06:42 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
|
|
Would you approve of cuts to the Defense Department's budget, Baconshorts?
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 AM.
|