Pressuring the people to pressure the politicians about our national debt
First came the New Year’s tax increases of the “fiscal cliff.” Last week, the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration took effect. Still, Congress will spend much of March negotiating a deal to fund the federal government for the next six months — a deal that, in all likelihood, will mean borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars more.
Lurching from one crisis to the next, however real or contrived each one may be, has not put the country on a more solid, sustainable fiscal path. That’s where Maya MacGuineas comes in.
“We actually know for the most part what the parameters of a fix are,” MacGuineas, head of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told me during a stop in Atlanta two weeks ago. “You know that you’re going to have to look at all parts of the budget.
“You know that a key challenge here is reforming our entitlement programs, as aging and health care are driving the debt, and that … we can reform entitlement programs in ways that are true to protecting people who depend on them — if we get ahead of it.”
True to CRFB’s bipartisan credentials, MacGuineas doesn’t put all the emphasis on the spending side. She also points to the $1 trillion in annual “tax expenditures,” subsidies hidden in the tax code rather than appropriations bills.
“Nobody looks at them,” she said. “These spending programs, dressed up as tax cuts — many of which are not working, many of which are de-leveling the playing field instead of allowing for a functioning economic system, all of which are draining the Treasury — need to be part of that evaluation too.”
So, how do we get politicians to do something they seemingly don’t want to do? One step is for everyone to acknowledge the immediacy of the problem.
“It really concerns me,” MacGuineas said, to hear “the argument, ‘Look at the [interest] rate environment. Why would we want to focus on the deficit? What we should be doing is borrowing more.’ That’s what people who give you credit-card teaser rates say also, to hook you in.”
Government debt that isn’t repaid on time — i.e., virtually all of it — must be refinanced later, almost certainly at higher interest rates. Just a 1-percentage-point increase in interest rates, MacGuineas said, could mean at least $1.3 trillion more in interest payments over the following decade.
“That’s the amount the super-committee [created by the 2011 debt-ceiling deal] failed to find in savings,” leading to the sequester cuts, she pointed out.
Another way is to point out the glaring flaws of proposals on the table.
“I give Paul Ryan credit for putting out a budget that shows how he would do it with spending cuts only,” MacGuineas said, “but don’t forget that budget includes a bunch of Medicare savings he said he opposed during the [2012 presidential] race.”
President Barack Obama’s budgets have their own problems, she said: “One year, he talked about 12-year budgets compared to other people’s 10-year numbers. The next year he counted war savings [after previously announcing the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan], which is really a gimmick.”
MacGuineas said voters “bear a huge responsibility” for continuing to “elect people with a bunch of promises that just are not workable, but they sound good.” That said, she insisted voters “should be able to trust their elected leaders to lead an honest discussion about it. … And that’s not happening.”
She also hopes that if others, such as herself, force that honest discussion upon the country, it will change the political incentives that affect taxing and spending.
“I think what happens in discussions is there are tipping points. And I think if you have enough people talking about this, you have the next ‘Ross Perot moment,’ where it goes from everybody promising fiscal giveaways to, suddenly, we the voters demand they tell us how they’d fix it. And once it gets to that point, then you know that somebody selling you the easy way out isn’t telling the truth, and then it becomes politically more important to have a fix.”
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
467 comments Add your comment
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
6:48 am
Good article, and kudos to Ms. MacGuineas for taking on this most important issue, but left unanswered is…
How do you get the 47% to care about the government running Obozo-sized deficits?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
6:54 am
The 47 percenters obviously disagree. What possible motivation would they have to be responsible? They rob future generations blind and then blame somebody else for the collapse.
We don’t have a spending problem, we have a parasite problem.
DeborahinAthens
March 7th, 2013
6:58 am
As I read it, the Constitution puts the responsibility of creating a budget,spending, borrowing, etc. on the Congress. Again, as I read it (and it has been perverted so much) the way it should work is this. The House proposes spending, cutting, borrowing. They say what should be done. The proposal would go to the Senate. The Senate adds, subtracts. It goes back to the House. A final (!!!!!????) budget should make its way to the President. The President can veto what he wants. To my knowledge, George W. Bush never vetoed any spending bill put before him. Clinton vetoed many, which flies in the face of the “Republicans spend less” mantra. Our problem, again, just going by the Constitution, is that our House, while filled with blowhard Republicans cannot summon the guts to tell the American people that we must change our entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare–again, contrary to the Republican rants–are very efficient. The problem is that, when SS was created, the average lifespan was 45. Today it is 72–and growing. If you want to know what a mess our elected “representatives” have created, read “Why our Medical Bills are Killing Us” in the March 4th Time magazine. People like my (not really elected) Congressman, Paul Broun, receive billions of dollars from the healthcare industry–hospitals, doctors, medical implant manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies–to keep our costs for healthcare high. Americans pay more for care than the next top ten countries combined. As the author,Steven Brill, says, we need to stop asking how we are going to pay for this, and, instead start asking our Congressmen and women why the costs of our healthcare is so high. The Flagpole, a local newspaper, printed a list of all our representatives and who had given them money (two or three years ago). Paul Broun had received the most, by far. And the majority of the donors were healthcare companies and doctors. The irony as pointed out in the Time article is that Medicare negotiates the lowest price for services of any other entity. A hospital stay for an uninsured person that runs $400,000 is knocked down to $17,000 for a Medicare recipient. We have spineless, gutless people in charge, and they are owned by the various corporate interests that buy them. They would rather screw us than bite the hands that feed them. Until this is changed, our government will not function.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
7:10 am
To my knowledge, George W. Bush never vetoed any spending bill put before him.
We all know what good your “knowledge” is, debs -
President Bush vetoed a $600 billion spending bill Tuesday, accusing Democratic leaders of wasting money and plotting tax increases, then took his budget fight with Congress on the road.
“The majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far, it’s acting like a teenager with a new credit card,” he said in a speech in New Albany, Indiana.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
7:11 am
The House Republicans pass a budget outline every year. The Senate does nothing. The budget process stops before it really gets started.
Heckuva job, Democrats.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
7:15 am
DeborahinAthens: Americans pay more for care than the next top ten countries combined.
—————————-
Laughably false.
http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=66
Thomas Heyward Jr
March 7th, 2013
7:15 am
Fiat currencies and centralized Banks ALWAYS fail.
There has NEVER been an exception.
.This system too…………..will fail.
.
But not until every last cent is squeezed out of the middle class and we’re all forced to subsist on cat food tainted with horse meat…or worse.
.
The debt is merely a symtom .
End the Fed.
UIC
March 7th, 2013
7:25 am
Maya MacGuinea knows…“for the most part what the parameters of a fix are.” …..her and a million others know what the “fix” is. There are also 50 million people in this country who were obese in 2003, who are still obese in 2013 (and they are in both the 47% and the 53% referred to above). You think they don’t know how to fix that situation? You don’t think those in the 53% are either currently asking, or will be asking gov’t Medicare to pay for their poor lifestyle choices?
First, knowing the problem and fixing it are different kettles of fish. Second, there are several different fixes, and no one solution is necessarily better than the next.
Jefferson
March 7th, 2013
7:26 am
If you want to get out of debt, you will have to support more revenue, anything less would mean you are fooling yourself .
Jefferson
March 7th, 2013
7:26 am
If you want to get out of debt, you will have to support more revenue, anything less would mean you are fooling yourself .
Jefferson
March 7th, 2013
7:26 am
Say it again.
tomnatlanta
March 7th, 2013
7:29 am
Deborahinathens is a great example of someone who can take a set of basic facts(how our congress is suppose to work) but either deliberately or not- miss state what in fact has happened. When Pelosi was in
charge of the democrats’ controlled house she did not pass a budget. When the republicans gained control of
the house they passed a budget each year but Harry Reid refused to even bring it up for a vote.
Just Saying..
March 7th, 2013
7:37 am
Lil Barry & Fables: So when Mitt apologized about the 47% characterization of nearly half the country, you didn’t believe him?
middle of the road
March 7th, 2013
7:42 am
You know, I have repeatedly blogged about reasonable means of balancing the budget, but I finally got tired of talking to myself. BOTH PARTIES in Washington have any interest in balancing the budget through compromise. One party insists on cutting all social spending and fully funding defense and wars, while the other insists on keeping all social programs and ONLY cutting defense. Neither want to keep both and increase ALL taxes to pay for them. The solution is somewhere in the middle, but no one is willing to compromise, so that is a pipe dream. So it will take a major economic emergency to force any change in the way we budget. Shame on both the Democrats and the Republicans! You are responsible for this mess!
Rafe Hollister
March 7th, 2013
7:52 am
I heard two disturbing “facts” yesterday, 1) at current spending and interest rate levels our grandchildren will be paying 80% more in taxes by 2050. 2) By 2050, without adjustments, the entire federal revenue will only cover soc sec and medicare, and medicaid, there will be no money for anything else.
Yet, people come on here everyday and say “austerity” is the wrong way to go, as we need to spend more money to keep this government based economy on track. There will never been enough money to keep a government based economy in the black. We have to get the private economy out of the ditch. No one is so blind, as those who refuse to see.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
7:53 am
We have more revenue coming in now than we did when the last Republican congress ran a $160 billion surplus. The problem is spending. Fix that first before taking another dime from Americans. Otherwise, you’re not being serious about the problem.
southpaw
March 7th, 2013
8:04 am
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury”
Mis-attributed to Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Tyler, Alexis de Tocqueville, and possibly others; actual author unknown
I fear that the “tipping point” being approached is not the “Ross Perot moment” Ms. MacGuineas described.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
8:05 am
The question I’ve always asked but no one has yet to give a definitive answer: Where was this level of concern about government spending when the nation was BUSHwhacked? During the Obama Administrations, government spending has DECLINED! The sequester was an unnecessary diversion by the GOP………
…..from the CBO (2/5/13):
“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015.”
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907
We DO have to handle long-term spending….but until the economy gets on firmer footing, the government has to be the entity to get the nation through the economic situation it’s in now. You CUT government spending during good economic times…and RAISE government spending during economic downturns. The government, however, must be efficient in how it spends; that is something that NEITHER party wants to address!!
jconservative
March 7th, 2013
8:05 am
I lay both the problem and the solution at the feet of Congress.
Congress controls the money. Under Reagan the national debt tripled, under Bush 43 it doubled and it appears it will double under Obama. The only constant among those three administrations is that Congress approved very dime they spent and authorized every dime of revenue they raised.
Nixon tried to “impound” (not spend) funds Congress said he had to spend and the Federal Court shot him out of the saddle. Clinton was given a “line item veto”, but the Congressional minority sued and the Supreme Court said the line item was unconstitutional.
Bottom line: Congress tells the president how much he can spend and that he must spend it, how much revenue he can have and where it can come from, that he must pay the bills on time, and that he must borrow the difference if the bills are more than the revenue. And then Congress said there is a limit on what you can owe and you can’t exceed that limit.
Am I the only person who thinks this is nonsense?
independent thinker
March 7th, 2013
8:08 am
I have yet to hear a sane argument on why the country should not get back to the tax levels in place when Clinton left office with a balnaced budget and a surplus to pay down the deficit created primarily under prior Republican presidents. This was the height of irresponsibility by our former president who coddled the rich during his entire eight years.To make up for the gaping hole created by twelve years of unbalanced budgets, three unfunded wars, and Medicare drug give away, there must be massive reductions in tax loopholes and corporate tax credits. $400 million dollars in tax credits to Face book on a billion dollars profits makes no sense. Giving anyone a tax refund when no or little taxes are paid makes no sense. (Republicans passed earned income tax credits to buy votes).Of course Kyle and members of the stupid party think it is all the fault of the Kenyan marxist in the white house.
Darwin
March 7th, 2013
8:11 am
YAWN!!! Hard to take the discussion serious when it only surfaces when Republicans are out of power.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
8:12 am
” We have to get the private economy out of the ditch.”
Question: When the private sector is SITTING on trillions and reports record PROFITS…what are they waiting for??
indigo
March 7th, 2013
8:13 am
We can start by getting our defence spending in line with other countries around the world.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp
DeborahinAthens
March 7th, 2013
8:13 am
Aesop, find me another. He actually had the brilliant idea for Medicare Part D, and his puppet Congress brought it up, passed it with nary a qualm–Dems and Repugs. Medicare Part D was the largest entitlement program ever.And it is deeply flawed. It forbids Medicare from negotiating withy the big Pharmas to get the price down. Why do you think that is the case? Follow the money.
James
March 7th, 2013
8:15 am
Buying votes is expensive.
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
8:16 am
Libs response: “But hey the stock market is at an all-time high”.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
8:19 am
Welcome to history, debs, as not told by pmsnbc -
May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110–28 with the President’s approval.
October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (”SCHIP”). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).
November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110–114 over President’s veto.
November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).
December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[27] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).
December 28, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[28] A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President’s approval as Pub.L. 110–181 on 28 January 2008.
March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[29][30] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.
May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[31][32] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President’s veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.
18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[33] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President’s veto.
July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[34] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110–275 over the President’s veto.
Bushie had to fight dimmicrat spending like some Herculean Gladiator.
But, of course, it was his fault.
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
8:19 am
“Medicare Part D was the largest entitlement program ever.”
Wrong. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are much larger than part D.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
8:20 am
Aesop, find me another. He actually had the brilliant idea for Medicare Part D
Bush doesn’t count, he appeared out of nowhere and hijacked the puritan sensible-thinking party so they’re not responsible for his spending spree. Or something.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
8:22 am
Milton Man – Yes, the libs learned much during their Occupy Wall Street summer vacation. Now, according to them, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is the sole measure of the nation’s economic health.
southpaw
March 7th, 2013
8:24 am
“During the Obama Administrations, government spending has DECLINED! ”
Only in one year.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 1.1 has this, among other things
Year Outlays
2001 1,862,846
2002 2,010,894
2003 2,159,899
2004 2,292,841
2005 2,471,957
2006 2,655,050
2007 2,728,686
2008 2,982,544
2009 3,517,677
2010 3,456,213
2011 3,603,061
Note that both on-budget outlays and the much-ballyhooed off-budget outlays are in these totals.
DeborahinAthens
March 7th, 2013
8:25 am
Lil Barry Bailout, it is NOT true that we have more revenue coming in now as opposed to when the Repugs went on their credit card spree. Not only were taxes slashed to the bone in 2003–something Dubya the Dumb and the dumbers were hell bent on doing and were warned against– but when the Recession started in 2007, there were millions of people put of work. So you had a triple storm…low tax rates and fewer people paying taxes. The taxes are still low and the unemployment rate is still too low to support our spending. And before you spit out the knee jerk reaction —” the president isn’t creating jobs…” , until companies are forced to start hiring– because they cannot produce their products or services with their existing employees, unemployment will hover in this range.
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
8:26 am
“(Republicans passed earned income tax credits to buy votes).”
Wrong again. The 1975 Congress passed this one & guess what, Democrats ruled both houses with none other than Robert “KKK” Byrd in a leadership role. But, hey nice college try on trying to blame the republicans.
independent thinker
March 7th, 2013
8:26 am
I am sure resident spokesperson for the stupid party, Mr. Aesop includes cutting all benefits to disabled veterans and granny when her kids can afford to support her as part of the 47% who are parasites. How about being concerned about GE paying no taxes on over 11 million in profits? How about a $75,000 tax write off for that dancing horse or millions in interest carryover deductions? or $400 million tax deduction for giving stock options to wealthy corporate officers? Probably too complex for the local cons. Easier to blame the Black communist.
arnold
March 7th, 2013
8:27 am
DeborahinAthens, I read the article in Time. It is very disheartening. I just don’t think our congressmen/women have the gumption to change anything. They are too busy trying to get re-elected.
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
8:31 am
“Milton Man – Yes, the libs learned much during their Occupy Wall Street summer vacation. Now, according to them, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is the sole measure of the nation’s economic health.”
The memory of a typical lib = life span of the average tsetse fly. I vividly remember libs bragging about the multiple “affordable housing acts” that they championed which bascially let anyone with a pulse “buy” a house. This garbage was the priamry reason for the housing bubble. Same thing happening in the stock market – lib policies (QE, low interest rates, buying up “toxic” mortgages, etc., etc.) are artifically inflating the stock market.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
8:33 am
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
8:19 am
Seem like what you laud as Bush’s vetoes were particularly aimed at the poor (SCHIP, Katrina, Medicare, Education, and Veterans)…..and the majority of that was in 2007….under a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!! You can’t blame Democrats for what Republicans did….and as they wish to continue to do: sacrifice the poor so that the wealthy can prosper more………
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
8:34 am
“Probably too complex for the local cons.”
Not at all. You must be alluding to the stockpile of “highly educated” democrats being mass produced by the Atlanta Public Schools, DeKalb public schools & Clayton public schools. Ask your beloved Hank Johnson to explain this one to us. His answer will include some reference to Guam tipping over.
southpaw
March 7th, 2013
8:36 am
Deborah in Athens
You and LBB might not be talking about the same time frame. The table I previously cited shows that the last budget surplus was in 2001 (although I can’t find LBB’s $160 billion). Total receipts were just under $2 trillion, as compared to $2.3 trillion in 2011. If the “credit card spree” years include 2006-2008, then your statement is true, although it doesn’t actually contradict LBB’s.
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
8:40 am
“…and the majority of that was in 2007….under a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!!”
Good God the untruths from the libs are unusually rich today. The 110th US Congress (Jan 2007 – Jan 2009) was controlled by Democrats in both chambers (when including the two indies who tended dem in the senate). None other than your beloved Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. But hey don’t let facts get in the way of your ignorance.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
8:41 am
southpaw
March 7th, 2013
8:24 am
FY 2009 is still the BUSH Budget! If you note the level of spending increases of the Administrations, Obama has spent LESS than Bush did!! The stimulus is counted in FY 2011. The actual level of government spending has DECLINED under Obama……..
stands for decibels
March 7th, 2013
8:41 am
Just a 1-percentage-point increase in interest rates,
hey, here’s a crazy idea.
Why don’t we actually try to implement expansionary policies and see if we ever get anything like a 1-percent-point increase in interest rates before declaring such things “bad” and “not serious” and, you know, worthy of “[p]ressuring the people to pressure the politicians about our national debt”?
I liken this to base runners learning out to take a lead-off. If you never allow yourself to get picked off, how do you even know that you’ve taken enough of one? You don’t.
We are terrified, apparently, of this one-percent interest rate increase, so much so that we continue battering the Poors and the Olds with nutty plans to cut programs designed to make their lives somewhat less horrible.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find that approach disgusting.
/drive-by
Scooter
March 7th, 2013
8:43 am
If more people listened to talk radio they would’ve heard all conservative talk show host criticizing the Republicrats Medicare Part D because it would cost too much. Maybe then they would know conservatives opposed increased debt under Bush too.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
8:45 am
@Kyle…”aging and health care are driving the debt”
Nice talking point…false but nice talking point. Reading that leads one to believe that a primary cause of our $1+ trillion deficit is a direct result of these four programs OASI , DI, HI & SMI which combined comprise Medicare and Social Security. ..it’s not true.
In 2011 these programs combined INCREASED their asset bases by spending LESS than was collected in tax receipts and investment income by $49.8 billion. In short Social Security and Medicare trust funds contributed ZERO to the deficit in 2011. Now you can make the valid argument that over the next 75 years some changes must be made to guarantee that performance but those changes will have ZERO impact on current deficits.
The real problem is this…in 2011 the Federal government collected $968.5 billion in revenue unrelated to these “entitlement” programs yet spent $2.32 trillion. That means that the problem is twofold, first we must increase revenues to fund that portion of government operations including the military and we must decrease spending in those areas.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
8:46 am
I vividly remember libs bragging about the multiple “affordable housing acts” that they championed which bascially let anyone with a pulse “buy” a house. This garbage was the priamry reason for the housing bubble.
MiltonMan personally re-writes history and economics all in one post. It must be so incredibly frustrating to know it all and never get your rightful deference from the real world.
Now I understand why cons turn up their noses at “so-called experts.” They’re self-made authorities on any subject and that’s that.
F. Sinkwich
March 7th, 2013
8:47 am
“Question: When the private sector is SITTING on trillions and reports record PROFITS…what are they waiting for??”
Okay, I’ll give it a shot:
Obamacare
Cap & Trade
Higher minimum wage
Dood-Frank financial regs
War on fossil fuels / higher energy costs
Tax increases
Etc.
Have I missed any? Probably…
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
8:48 am
-MacGuineas said voters “bear a huge responsibility” for continuing to “elect people with a bunch of promises that just are not workable, but they sound good.”
The party of handouts and their 47% sheeple say,”What?”.
stands for decibels
March 7th, 2013
8:48 am
one other thing:
The 110th US Congress (Jan 2007 – Jan 2009) was controlled by Democrats in both chambers (when including the two indies who tended dem in the senate).
Yeah, I remember when Nancy Pelosi held that gun to poor GW Bush’s head and forced him to sign all that nasty super-spendy stuff. Dark times!
(And we haven’t even gotten into Barney Frank’s illegal use of The Gaydar.)
/really gone now, for awhile anyways…
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
8:49 am
HDB: Where was this level of concern about government spending when the nation was BUSHwhacked? During the Obama Administrations, government spending has DECLINED!
———-
Our President Bush never spent at this level. Neither did He propose or run trillion-dollar Obozodeficits. Try again after getting a better grasp of reality.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
8:50 am
@Southpaw…you do realize that 2009 spending total was Duhbya’s don’t you? Take a look at the difference between 2009 and 2001 to see where the real problem occured.
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
8:54 am
Jefferson- If you want to get out of debt, you will have to support more revenue, anything less would mean you are fooling yourself .
No matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. Unless you control spending, no amount of revenue increase will ever be enough.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
8:54 am
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
8:31 am
“I vividly remember libs bragging about the multiple “affordable housing acts” that they championed which bascially let anyone with a pulse “buy” a house. ”
Affordable housing has been a staple of the American government since 1937! No one reduced the credit requirements in home purchasing; it was the LENDERS who went looking for buyers of sub-prime mortgages.
southpaw
March 7th, 2013
8:55 am
HDB
In FY 2011 Bush was long since out of power. He couldn’t decide to continue or end the stimulus. The House of Representatives had to appropriate, or not appropriate, money to continue the stimulus after 2009. And I DON’T note the “level of spending increases;” I note the actual dollars spent, and President Obama is spending them faster than President Bush.
fair and balanced
March 7th, 2013
8:57 am
I am so happy to see Paul Ryan now supports the $716 billion Medicare cuts that a year ago he and the supreme flip flopper claimed Obama was stealing from Medicare and Ryan’s mother. Maybe she really did not need that free gym membership and free scooter after all.
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
8:58 am
HDB- The question I’ve always asked but no one has yet to give a definitive answer: Where was this level of concern about government spending when the nation was BUSHwhacked?
Ever heard of the Tea Party?
My question (which you’ll never answer) is if you were so upset at Bush, not are you just not livid at obama?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
8:59 am
Nonsense, JDW. Spending was around $3 trillion in 2008. Obozo refuses to return it to pre-recession levels, even though the recession ended four years ago!
His failure on the economy is solely responsible for adding $6 trillion to the debt and keeping unemployment at or above 8% for more than four years.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
9:01 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
8:49 am
….from southpaw….here’s the expenditures of the Bush years!
2002 2,010,894
2003 2,159,899
2004 2,292,841
2005 2,471,957
2006 2,655,050
2007 2,728,686
2008 2,982,544
2009 3,517,677
Note: FY 2009 Bush spent 3.5T…and had a 1.4T DEFICIT!! Also, knowing that Bush kept the two wars OFF THE BOOKS, it is quite feasible that he had been running trillion dollar deficits for at least FIVE YEARS!! Better rethink the possibilities……
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
9:02 am
“MiltonMan personally re-writes history and economics all in one post. It must be so incredibly frustrating to know it all and never get your rightful deference from the real world.
Now I understand why cons turn up their noses at “so-called experts.” They’re self-made authorities on any subject and that’s that.”
…and Aquagirl stayed under the water just a bit too long resulting in brain damage. Refutes my “opinions” with her own “opinions” thus resulting in her being correct??? Did you “graduate” from APS?
HDB
March 7th, 2013
9:09 am
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
8:58 am
“My question (which you’ll never answer) is if you were so upset at Bush, not are you just not livid at obama?”
To answer your question: I was upset at Bush for spending on TWO UNNECESSARY WARS and keeping the expenditures off the books, tax cuts for the rich while ignoring the infrastructure and ignoring the needs of the people in New Orleans. I’m more angry at Congress rather than Obama because the national needs aren’t being met because of their obstruction and obfuscation!! I AM angry at Obama because he hasn’t been as forceful as I’d hoped….but he’s dealing with things a lot better than I would have if I were in the same situation!!
curious
March 7th, 2013
9:10 am
Lot of anger here.
You aren’t convincing anybody of anything except what a sad person you are.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
9:10 am
@LBB…”Spending was around $3 trillion in 2008. Obozo refuses to return it to pre-recession levels,”
Lots of things were cheaper five years ago…what possible rational can you have for that statement. As for the recession….what is driving the higher spending are still in many ways the associated costs of that recession and the unemployed it spawned.
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
9:12 am
Let’s see what the President has to say about the deficit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q
curious
March 7th, 2013
9:13 am
We haven’t had a budget for 4 years or so. How are we managing to increase spending so much ?
Somebody must be approving these expenditures.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
9:13 am
“Ever heard of the Tea Party?” — Not until 2009….after Obama was elected!!
MountainMan
March 7th, 2013
9:17 am
You cannot solve the budget deficit with tax increases because historically for every dollar of new revenue, the government adds $1.17 of new spending.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/wsj-each.html
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
9:17 am
HDB- I AM angry at Obama because he hasn’t been as forceful as I’d hoped…
It’s called lack of leadership. Unfortunately the 47% sheeple love his incompetence as long as they are getting a check from the government.
independent thinker
March 7th, 2013
9:18 am
If Kyle and the cons wanted to deal honestly with facts they would at least read the publications of the White house office of management of Budget and historical trends of spending, GDP and current budget cuts, Of course this require some intelligence and ability to do Math which as ole Bill said is not a strong quality in the stupid party. GDP is up nearly 2 trillion dollars since Obama took office. Defense spending increased by almost 250% from 281 billion to almost 650 billion – a greater increase by percent than medicare or social security. of course there is increased spending due to
stimulus and unemployment benefits- primary beneficiaries?? the states. And the list of spending reductions is quite impressive. But again this is a communist publication to brainwash the public.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
9:19 am
Refutes my “opinions” with her own “opinions” thus resulting in her being correct???
No, I didn’t attempt to refute your opinion whatsoever. I simply noted it was an opinion with no basis in fact, and that you think your feebly gathered opinion is right simply because it’s yours. No facts or actual reality will change your mind, you’ll simply re-imagine the world to fit your perception.
I don’t know why you suffer from this debilitating illness or why it’s so common in the little CPAC cluster but it’s fascinating to watch the process play itself out.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
9:23 am
JDW @ 8:45: It’s not as if we haven’t been through this before, but …
You keep acting as if someone other than taxpayers or lenders is putting up the money for what you call “investment income.” Those are investments in U.S. Treasurys; taxpayers (or lenders, when we are running a deficit) are the ones providing the money for the interest and principal payments on those investments. The fact is, the four main accounts listed on that document spent about $411 billion more in 2011 than they took in via what most Americans consider their funding sources: e.g., payroll taxes and premiums. If spending on those programs had been equal to what was taken in via payroll taxes, premiums and such, the deficit would have been $411 billion smaller. There is no getting around that.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
9:26 am
JDW @ 8:50: Are you ever going to quit lying about who was responsible for 2009 spending? We have been through this many times before…you have even admitted in the past that some of the spending in FY09 was Obama’s responsibility. We may disagree about how much — although the facts are on my side — but why do you insist on absolving Obama of any responsibility for FY09 spending unless I call you on it?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
9:26 am
How about being concerned about GE paying no taxes on over 11 million in profits?
Look up the words “Green Energy Subsidies,” einstein.
And there is a big difference between “helping the poor” and giving them money that future generations will have to pay.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
9:28 am
And HDB @ 9:01 brings up one of the other most blatantly false talking points on the left: “Also, knowing that Bush kept the two wars OFF THE BOOKS, it is quite feasible that he had been running trillion dollar deficits for at least FIVE YEARS!!”
When you talk about “expenditures” — not spending in the main budget bill, those quaint little things that Congress used to pass before Harry Reid decided it was to his political benefit not to do so — you are talking about ALL spending. Every dime. That includes the wars and other spending that was done in supplemental appropriations bills.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
9:32 am
Most of this countries debt was run up during Republican administrations.
Now just like before with Clinton it will be up to a responsible Democrat to balance the books.
jms
March 7th, 2013
9:33 am
Our future looks bleak. Our children’s future, even worse.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
9:35 am
We have been through this many times before…you have even admitted in the past that some of the spending in FY09 was Obama’s responsibility.
We were right in the middle of the Bush recession then.
” This sucker could go down ”
- President George W Bush referring to the economy he presided over.
MiltonMan
March 7th, 2013
9:37 am
“Most of this countries debt was run up during Republican administrations.
Now just like before with Clinton it will be up to a responsible Democrat to balance the books.”
Depends on what your defintion of “is” is.
Georgia
March 7th, 2013
9:39 am
The last issue standing for the GOP is the national debt and the deficit which are supposed to be two different things but voters are too simple to understand the difference. However, if the GOP is hoping that the debt (deficit) will save them, well, guess what? The debt/deficit is a red herring. There never has been, nor will there ever be any correlation between growth and the debt/deficit. It isn’t a problem, and never has been. Recessions/depressions are caused by factors still unknown, like sunspots, gravity and what happens to all the rubber on tires? Why aren’t all of our roads rutted with tire rub-off? Where does all that rubber go? Nobody knows. (or cares). . We don’t know nothing. We just work till we die and spend all our money on beer and cigarettes. Notice that nothing ever really happens? We are told that things are happening, but nothing ever really does. Except acts of war. Those are real.
But everything else, especially about the economy is all hooey. Total hooey.
ISAIDHOOEY!!!!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
9:39 am
Depends on what your defintion of “is” is.
Ill take that over
The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud.
Great job Brownie.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
9:40 am
independent thinker @ 9:18: “GDP is up nearly 2 trillion dollars since Obama took office.”
Almost all of it due to inflation. Adjusted for inflation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP in 2009* was $12.76T. In 2012, it was $13.59T. That’s 6.5% growth in three years, which is pretty bad by America’s historical standards.
* This is the most favorable comparison for Obama. Because GDP is measured in calendar years, not fiscal years that begin Oct. 1, the actual comparison should be to 2008, when real GDP was $13.16T. But because Obama took office amid a deep recession, I’ll stipulate that, for these purposes, it’s fair to make his starting point 2009, when the economy bottomed out.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
9:46 am
@Kyle…“You keep acting as if someone other than taxpayers or lenders is putting up the money for what you call “investment income.” Those are investments in U.S. Treasurys; taxpayers (or lenders, when we are running a deficit) are the ones providing the money for the interest and principal payments on those investments. ”
Treasuries are investments pure and simple. In the years when the programs collected far far more in taxes than expenditures investments were made…safe investments…now you want to say that the debt is not owed? I call bull$hit.
“The fact is, the four main accounts listed on that document spent about $411 billion more in 2011 than they took in via what most Americans consider their funding sources: e.g., payroll taxes and premiums. If spending on those programs had been equal to what was taken in via payroll taxes, premiums and such, the deficit would have been $411 billion smaller. There is no getting around that.”
Not true…the programs took in $1.335 trillion of which $129.6 was investment income …had such income been eliminated, and there is no reason whatsoever to do that, then the contribution to the deficit would have been $79.9 billion. The problem with this whole line of thought is that this money was INVESTED by the American people and now some would like to steal it…again.
The problem is that many in this country don’t want to fund the rest of the government…almost half of that military. They would rather…aheeemmm….repurpose those tax and investment dollars that currently fund Social Security and Medicare just fine thank you very much.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
9:47 am
ooopsss HTML skills are off
southpaw
March 7th, 2013
9:50 am
Thanks Kyle @9:26 & 9:28, & LBB @8:59. HDB, I already pointed out that the totals include off-budget outlays.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
9:54 am
@Kyle…”Are you ever going to quit lying about who was responsible for 2009 spending? ”
I would like to ask you the same question…as would the people over at FactCheck.org who say
The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Bush submitted a budget of $3.1+ trillion for 2009. That total was run up to $3.3+ trillion by automatic spending related to the Duhbya Recession…Obama AT MOST and this is quite generous added $200 billion to the total.
Using that as a baseline spending has increased less than 3.5% per year or about half of the annual increased racked up by Duhbya and Reagan…
It is not I that has lost a grasp of the facts.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
9:54 am
JDW @ 9:46: “the programs took in $1.335 trillion of which $129.6[B] was investment income”
And $326B was from general revenues. So, getting back to my point, the supposedly sufficient revenue streams for these programs fell short by about 34 percent.
Even assuming it doesn’t hurt to tap into the trust funds — an assumption I’ll make only in this argument, to demonstrate how dire the situation is — they will be depleted in a couple of decades. At which point, MacGuineas said, we are looking at a 22 percent cut across-the-board for SS and Medicare, for anyone who’s retired at that time. That, or a tax increase of several hundred billion dollars per year.
The longer people like you keep insisting there’s no problem, the bigger the problem is going to be when we finally run out of smoke and mirrors.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
9:55 am
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
9:17 am
“It’s called lack of leadership. Unfortunately the 47% sheeple love his incompetence as long as they are getting a check from the government.”
I would say lack of leadership; Obama has a different leadership style…..
…and in that 47%, are you counting the military as sheeple….are you counting the air traffic controllers as sheeple…or are you counting the millionaires and business executives that pay NO INCOME TAXES as sheeple?? Please clarify…………
Steve
March 7th, 2013
9:57 am
Kyle – so the response is to just keep cutting spending yet ignoring the tax loopholes for the rich, the tax rates lowered to the point where government is starving? The only way we get out of this mess is to raise taxes (rich now, everyone when the economy is back), and continue to cut spending across the board. Americans are going to have to make sacrifices, but that includes the wealthy, and if you look at wealth distribution right now, the wealthy are in incredible shape. Corporations are sitting on billions of dollars. It’s time to fix this mess.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
10:01 am
Dont worry Kyle.
The calvary of nuts will be here soon enough.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
10:02 am
@Kyle…”And $326B was from general revenues. So, getting back to my point, the supposedly sufficient revenue streams for these programs fell short by about 34 percent.”
You are spinning and badly…directly from the Trustees report.
“In 2011, approximately 13 percent of OASDI Trust Fund income came from
reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury. Public Law 111-312,
the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation
Act of 2010, accounts for almost all of the reimbursement for the year. This
act specified general fund reimbursement for temporary reductions in revenue
due to reduced payroll tax rates for employees and for self-employed
workers.”
You know full well that the general revenue contribution is a one off and not part of normal operations.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
10:03 am
@Kyle…”The longer people like you keep insisting there’s no problem, the bigger the problem is going to be when we finally run out of smoke and mirrors.”
I have never denied that we have a long-term issue that must be address. My issue is with people like you intimating that these programs are drivers of our CURRENT deficits…they are not.
Michael
March 7th, 2013
10:06 am
Aesop and Lil barry,Remind me again of how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanastan have cost. Not to mention that there are thousands of Vets filing for benefits from VA that will continue to cost billions over the coming years. Gotta love Dick Cheney.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
10:07 am
Americans are going to have to make sacrifices
But most are unwilling to do this. Americans want to have thier cake and eat it too.
Consider what Americans did during WWII. A lot of things were rationed in those days.
Do you think today’s spoiled American would make those sacrifices ???
Absolutely not.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
10:10 am
According to the Open Congress summary of HR 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, introduced in Congress on Feb. 22, 2009, and signed by Obama on March 10, 2009:
“This bill totals about $410 billion and covers funding for fiscal year 2009 for the nine federal agencies that were not funded under the regular appropriations process last year.”
That’s on top of the stimulus. So, your $200B doesn’t come anywhere close.
Yes, I realize your FactCheck article mentions that omnibus bill. But it strains credibility — to put it mildly — for those fact-checkers to assign Bush responsibility for $378B of a $410B bill that he did not sign. The fact that those agencies got $378B in the previous fiscal year does not cut it as an argument. Is it impossible to think Bush wanted to cut their spending to help offset the other spending he’d increased? If we are assigning responsibility to presidents for spending they signed into law, how can we possibly assign responsibility for that spending to Bush?
If Obama had never signed that bill, we would not add $378B to Bush’s total for FY09. But suddenly we can assign him responsibility for it because Obama did sign it? That’s ludicrous.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
10:12 am
JDW @ 10:03: So what about the $326B in general revenues? Are you denying that the deficit would have been $326B smaller if that money wasn’t needed for those programs?
southpaw
March 7th, 2013
10:13 am
I never expected to say this, but…
Cheesy Grits @10:07, you are absolutely right.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
10:34 am
@Kyle…”That’s on top of the stimulus. So, your $200B doesn’t come anywhere close.”
Talk to FactCheck…
“But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year. It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion”
I understand that when the facts don’t support your version you have trouble…but that goes to the heart of a firm grasp on them. Fact is they went through the numbers and you don’t agree with the facts.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
10:36 am
@Kyle…”So what about the $326B in general revenues? Are you denying that the deficit would have been $326B smaller if that money wasn’t needed for those programs?”
That money replaced the monies lost from the payroll tax cut which has now expired. To use that as an example of a critical funding problem is laughable.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
10:38 am
At least there is a little bit of progress. Kyle, after earlier proclaiming, in step with the Republican Congressional leadership, that the tax increases have been over with and done with the “fiscal clift” decision, now at least presents arguments that Obama’s approach, to include cutting loopholes for corporations and deductions for high earners, has validity. Calling it “tax expenditures” and thus their elimination “tax spending cuts,” the Republicans may save face and agree to the balance approach Obama favors.
But what is missing most in all the talk about the need for spending cuts (the real spending cuts) is the lack of differentiation. There are spending cuts that should be supported by everyone, such as elimination of fraud and waste (keeping in mind that “waste” is often in the eyes of the beholder).
There are also cuts that only hurt people. When people ask for “tightening the belts,” they surely do not have in mind the wealthy. Cuts in Medicaid fall in the same category. And then there are cuts that save money in the short run, but hurt the country in the long run. Firing teachers, cuts in research, cuts (or inadequate increase) in funding infrastructure projects, for instance.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
10:41 am
Something that won’t help the federal debt is the new policy instituted by Texas governor Rick Perry and the GOP controlled Texas Legislature. They were able to stop federal funding of Planned Parenthood in the state as of January 1st, 2013. According to the Texas Tribune, because a considerable number of poor women no longer have free birth control, the policy will lead to 24,000 unintended births in the next 2 years and cost state taxpayers $243 million. And of course that will hit federal taxpayers for the next 18 years in Medicaid, food stamp, welfare and government assisted housing costs.
You can be a religious conservative or a fiscal conservative but you cannot be both. And it’s time the republican party to completely eliminate the religious right and their agenda.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
10:47 am
breckenridge-
I am a republican, obviously you aren’t. I have a deal for you. You suggest all you want what you want the democrats to do or not do and I’ll worry about the republicans. BTW, it takes a pretty big ego to think you know best for what you dislike so much, much less that your “advice” should be listened too.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
10:52 am
Mark IV-
With your exceptions there is little left to cut. Pain will be felt by everyone and there can’t be sacred cows. In addition entire departments must go away and the federal government must get out of much of the “goodness” it is in now. That is the only way the budget will be balanced and our debt reduced.
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
10:53 am
cheesy- Now just like before with Clinton it will be up to a responsible Republican Congress to balance the books.
Fixed your typo.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
10:53 am
O’ and Kyle, speaking of laughable…”A case can be made that Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for the entire $32 billion increase. The $410 billion was only $20 billion more than Bush had requested, according to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the appropriations chairman.”
I guess you missed the part where that was funding requested by Bush that had not been completed before he left office…from FactCheck…
“A case can be made that Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for the entire $32 billion increase. The $410 billion was only $20 billion more than Bush had requested, according to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the appropriations chairman.”
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
10:53 am
The AJC has a headline using the word “Furlough.” In my long working career in the air line industry, the word furlough was applied when someone is not working. It took the place of “laid off.” And, in the current situation the people in question are still working, just their hours are reduced.
Using the word furlough presents the wrong picture. The wrong picture is being given by the Obama administration and of course the liberal writers in legacy media – paint as bad a picture as possible and blame it on the Republicans.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
10:55 am
JDW: Why are you ignoring the section of my 10:10 in which I specifically addressed what FactCheck said?
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
10:59 am
HDB- I would say lack of leadership; Obama has a different leadership style…..
…and in that 47%, are you counting the military as sheeple….are you counting the air traffic controllers as sheeple…or are you counting the millionaires and business executives that pay NO INCOME TAXES as sheeple?? Please clarify
obama “has a different leadership style” is the understatement of the year. It’s called “NONE”.
Big difference between people who work for the government and those who do nothing except take handouts (giving nothing in return).
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:05 am
Retired soldier:
You said I am not a republican. That is correct, I’m a fiscal conservative who was a republican for 24 years who quit the party because it has been destroyed by fundamentalist religion.
My core beliefs are as follows 1) small government 2) fiscal restraint 2) individual liberty – Goldwater values. Furthermore I believe 4) people that believe the Bible is word-for-word true are either misinformed, naive or just plain stupid and 5) the belief that only born-again Christians can go to heaven is 100% pure garbage and 6) the Southern Baptist and Pentecostal churches should both lose their tax-exempt status because they are involved in politicking and spreading stupidity.
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
11:06 am
It would be very intersting to know how the people who actually pay income tax voted in this past election?
And, I don’t mean to include people who have income tax deducted each payday but get it all back, sometimes more back, than was deducted.
In the end, the compromise will be less spending and more tax increases. To make any headway, the tax increases will have to apply to middle income – the bunch who still pay some taxes.
The problem is obviously those not carrying their own weight. The life boat is full or soon will be. There are hard choices ahead that will cause the bleeding hearts to explode.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
11:13 am
Big difference between people who work for the government and those who do nothing except take handouts (giving nothing in return).
This sort of incisive thought process is why Republicans are no longer the party of small government/less spending. They’re intellectually bankrupt.
Republicans sold their souls for these votes, further proving they’re not a party capable of logical thought.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:19 am
“JDW: Why are you ignoring the section of my 10:10 in which I specifically addressed what FactCheck said?”
Because it’s devastating to his flawed case, Kyle!
From ‘Liar, Liar’:
http://www.hark.com/liar-liar/its-devastating-to-my-case
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
11:20 am
breckenridge-
Points 1-3 I am with you 100 %. Your dismay at not funding Planned Parenthood violates 1, 2 and possibly 3.
Your have completely the right to believe or not to believe, but don’t forget this nation was founded on a Judeo-Christian heritage and many of us wish to maintain that tradition. Finally, if you think the Southern Baptists and Pentrcostals are the only “political” churches you need to think again.
Uncle Jed
March 7th, 2013
11:20 am
Jefferson
March 7th, 2013
7:26 am
If you want to get out of debt, you will have to support more revenue, anything less would mean you are fooling yourself .
Fooling YOURSELF indeed there Mr. Jefferson. If one desires to be debt free, then one must stop spending in excess of one’s means. As you know, assuming you are able to accept reality, there is not enough revenue available through taxation to offset the irresponsible spending spree.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
11:25 am
AQ-
“Republicans are no longer the party of small government/less spending”
You are correct, they are known as Rino’s. There is a serious push to elimate those from hilding office. We have found that being “democrat-lite” is a sure fire way to defeat.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
11:26 am
Uncle Jed-
Amen brother.
independent thinker
March 7th, 2013
11:27 am
I find it interesting that Kyle explains a nearly 230% increase on defense spending “on the books” since 2009 as due to inflation, Harry Reid and left wing practices. Nearly 500 billion being spent on F-35s that can’t even fly right now. I would love to see which red states got that contract.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
11:27 am
but don’t forget this nation was founded on a Judeo-Christian heritage
No it was not.
The founding fathers were liberals and wanted Religion very much out of the picture.
If anything they knew they had a unique opportuninty in human history. To create a country from scratch.
They drew far more inpsiration from ancient democracies of Rome etc.
This is well documented.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
11:29 am
Retired Soldier @ 10:52 am
That is your opinion, to which you are entitled, and which I am entitled to disagree with.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
11:30 am
@Kyle…”JDW: Why are you ignoring the section of my 10:10 in which I specifically addressed what FactCheck said?”
Not ignoring it…your argument is…
“for those fact-checkers to assign Bush responsibility for $378B of a $410B bill that he did not sign. The fact that those agencies got $378B in the previous fiscal year does not cut it as an argument.”.
Which is specifically addressed and rendered mute in my 10:53 that points out Duhbya REQUESTED said spending…it had simply not been appropriated when he left office.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
11:32 am
@Tiberius…”Because it’s devastating to his flawed case,”
Ahhhh “Mr. Self Appointed Constitutional Authority” has crawled out from under his rock…with his usual insightful contribution…BTW how is the search for the federal budgeting requirements in the Constitution coming…thought so.
Uncle Jed
March 7th, 2013
11:33 am
@breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:05 am
…and 6) the Southern Baptist and Pentecostal churches should both lose their tax-exempt status because they are involved in politicking and spreading stupidity.
So, let me take a guess at it: You are a high bishop in one or both of the maligned churches, right?
Hillbilly D
March 7th, 2013
11:36 am
It’s always the other guy’s fault……..therein lies the means of our destruction.
Uncle Jed
March 7th, 2013
11:40 am
The founding fathers were liberals and wanted Religion very much out of the picture.
If anything they knew they had a unique opportuninty in human history. To create a country from scratch.
They drew far more inpsiration from ancient democracies of Rome etc.
This is well documented.
Pass the grits and put down the comic books. They are not a reliable research tool unless you wear your panties on the outside of your colored tights.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:41 am
Cheesy Grits……
The Founding Fathers did indeed draw on ancient democracies. And also the Enlightenment thinkers. Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Hamilton, John Jay…all the thinkers of the Founding generation pointed to John Locke as having a major influence on their political thinking.
Between 1766 and 1774 James Madison, who was positively brilliant, studied every political system ever devised by man. Each and every one. And one of his conclusions was that “religion has never been the guardian of liberty” which was certainly foremost in his mind when he wrote the Bill Of Rights.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
11:41 am
independent thinker: You need to check your reading skills. Or math skills. Maybe both.
My comment about inflation had to do with your other point about GDP growth. As for defense spending: According to OMB’s historical tables — you want Table 3.1 — defense spending was $661B in FY09. It was projected to peak at $716.3B in FY12. That’s an 8.4% increase, not a 230% increase.
Kyle Wingfield
March 7th, 2013
11:42 am
Ok, JDW @ 11:30, in that case we should assign many billions more to Obama for each of his years in office. After all, he requested it; it just hasn’t been appropriated yet…
independent thinker
March 7th, 2013
11:42 am
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"In each of his three previous budgets, the President identified on average more than 150 terminations,
reductions, and savings, totaling nearly $25 billion each year. These cuts ranged from eliminating subsidies
for oil and gas companies that hardly need to be propped up to saving millions of dollars by leveraging
technology to make Treasury transactions paperless and more efficient. While recent administrations have
seen between 15 and 20 percent of their proposed discretionary cuts approved by the Congress, the
Administration saw 60 percent of its proposed discretionary cuts become law for 2010. The 2012 Budget
proposed nearly $25 billion in discretionary terminations and reductions; Congress reduced these programs
by $23 billion, 92 percent of the requested reduction.1
The Budget Control Act that the President signed into law in August will generate approximately $1
trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years through the use of discretionary spending caps. Meeting these caps requires reducing the overall discretionary spending level for the second straight year. In fact, compared to 2010, discretionary spending has decreased by $42 billion or 4 percent. To meet these caps, it will takenot only eliminating ineffective and duplicative programs, but also cutting worthy programs that theAd ministration would otherwise fund were it not for the tight fiscal environment. “”"”"”"”"”"”"
From the WHouse Office of Management and Budget (online)
So where are the matching reductions in tax deductions promised by the supreme flip flopper and Lyin Ryan???????????? or they are no longer members of the stupid party?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:42 am
Both extremes (left AND right) are failing this nation, and the biggest culprit is President Incompetent.
No leadership capability whatsoever.
Takes him 4 years to invite selected Republicans to dinner to try to find common ground? Really?
Anybody who thinks he’s going to walk into PUBLIC negotiations with tax hikes and little to no spending cuts with an opposition who can stop him cold is, frankly, not playing with a full deck. As is the opposition who thinks that spending cuts alone will pass the other side of the aisle in their own chamber, let alone the other chamber run by the opposition.
Now, to the armchair generals who think we could (and should) cut our defense spending to reflect the rest of the world, get a life! We spend more because at some point, we’ll be called upon to bail some other country’s butt out of the fire. It’s not right, but over the last century we have allowed ourselves and those other countries to believe that is our role when it is not. This is not to say that defense shouldn’t be cut and our role reduced, but to cut to the rest of the world’s level is simply naive.
And yes, entitlement programs must be cut, despite the liberal’s clinging to their phony effectiveness. Raise the age for receiving SS for people 50 and younger, and block grant Medicare to the states to run. The fallacy that we are receiving enough to fund those programs, when we are stealing those dollars to fund others with NO plan in which to pay back that stealing, is simply akin to building the dam higher and higher while not controlling the rising waters.
On the revenue side, eliminate ALL deductions and loopholes.
For everybody. Including the home mortgage deduction. If you can’t afford a home, the government has no business in helping you to do so. The GOP needs to understand that as part of this, rates cannot offset completely the increased revenues this will bring in. They should be lowered, but not a one-for-one cut in rates to revenue gains.
You want a “grand bargain”, this is a good place to start.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
11:43 am
When the Truth sees cheesy and jdw walking down the street it must run the other way, screaming in horror.
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
11:45 am
aquagirl- Republicans sold their souls for these votes, further proving they’re not a party capable of logical thought.
Not sure you’re keeping up with current events, but the 47%ers all voted for obama. Last I checked, obama was not a Republican. The soulless crowd is overwhelmingly Democrat.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
11:46 am
One of the reasons the US Dollar is the world’s reserve currency is because our military might stabilizes it. So yeah, let’s gut the military.
You have to be willfully blind to not see that every idea a lib has is meant to do damage to the United States. Every one. Name something good that has come about of liberalism. You can’t do it.
Uncle Jed
March 7th, 2013
11:49 am
“…“religion has never been the guardian of liberty” which was certainly foremost in his mind when he wrote the Bill Of Rights.”
Let’s stipulate that your assessemnt of Madison’s mind is generally correct for the sake of this argument. Notwithstanding, it seems dismissive of reality to assert that this country was not founded under a code of morality derived from Judeo-Christian principles. There are simply too many references and examples to reasonable beleive otherwise. The only true guardian of liberty is the free man, regardless of his religious affiliation. Our freedom is granted by our Creator.
e
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
11:50 am
cheesy- The founding fathers were liberals and wanted Religion very much out of the picture.
ROFL! That is a good one. Maybe you should have done more than sleep through history class.
Is that why most states had official religions? Because they wanted to make sure to keep away from it…
JDW
March 7th, 2013
11:51 am
@Kyle…”Ok, JDW @ 11:30, in that case we should assign many billions more to Obama for each of his years in office. After all, he requested it; it just hasn’t been appropriated yet…”
Well interesting spin…should the President request spending in a formal budget spending that is then appropriated the month after he leaves you go right ahead.
Do you have any idea how idiotic it is to claim that bill is the result of Obama overspending…you are talking about regular funding for that had been requested by Duhbya in a formal budget proposal and not apporoprated when he left office. Thats just asinine.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
11:51 am
So yeah, let’s gut the military.
Exactly. I dont think the dollar willl care if we stop spending 500 billion on fighter jets that dont fly.
Most of your government waste is right there.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:52 am
“When the Truth sees cheesy and jdw walking down the street it must run the other way, screaming in horror.”
Not so, Aesop. The Truth and Cheesy and JDW are never found in the same zip code!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
11:54 am
ROFL! That is a good one. Maybe you should have done more than sleep through history class.
Its true. They were.
Washington rarely attended church. Jefferson, Franklin., Thomas Paine, Paul Revere,
Liberals all.
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
11:55 am
independent- In each of his three previous budgets, the President identified on average more than 150 terminations, reductions, and savings, totaling nearly $25 billion each year.
Then why do we still have debt? That should have been cleared up years ago with all that money…
Don't Tread
March 7th, 2013
11:58 am
Of course, according to Democrats, there isn’t a spending problem – it’s a revenue problem! (It’s a “revenue problem” because there are other people who have more money than they do and “that’s not fair”).
Democrats aren’t interested in fixing the debt problem. They want to enforce equality of outcome, even if it requires bankrupting the country and destroying the economy to do it.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:58 am
Oh, and this whole nonsense that President Incompetent wasn’t responsible for FY2009 spending?
Laughable.
He’s the Chief Freakin’ Executive, ladies!
He ran for and was hired to do a job; nobody forced him to do so, and he continues to fail at it each and every day. Just because it was appropriated, doesn’t mean it has to be spent. He may not have WANTED to cut spending, but because he did not choose to, he owns FY 2009.
Nice try at not taking responsibility, but while it might get you re-elected by the dumb masses, it doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
11:59 am
Is that why most states had official religions? Because they wanted to make sure to keep away from it
Show me the word God in the Constitution.
Do you think they just forgot ?
I understand this doesnt fit in with the lie you have been told over and over and have come to believe.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:59 am
“Liberals all.”
Correction: LIBERTARIANS all.
HUGE difference, Cheesy.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:02 pm
Of course, according to Democrats, there isn’t a spending problem – it’s a revenue problem!
When people like Mitt Romney pay half the rate of an average American.
Then yes there is a problem.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:02 pm
Correction: LIBERTARIANS all.
HUGE difference, Cheesy.
Nope.
Liberals.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:03 pm
For the historical revisionists on today’s blog, i.e. Cheesy Grits, the Founding Fathers didn’t want a STATE (government) religion, not a ban on religion.
They knew that freedom TO worship should not be curtailed, just not sponsored.
That being said, there is no Constitutional justification for tax exemption of churches.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:05 pm
“Nope.
Liberals.”
Reality says differently. Just not in Chessyville.
Libertarians think. Liberals? Not so much.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:07 pm
@Tiberius…”Not so, Aesop. The Truth and Cheesy and JDW are never found in the same zip code!”
Yeah right…it’s just FactCheck and The CATO Institute taking my view vs. you yahoo’s that’s an easy choice.
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
12:07 pm
cheesy- Washington rarely attended church. Jefferson, Franklin., Thomas Paine, Paul Revere, Liberals all.
I guess it’s a good thing our country only had five people in it at that time.
“To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible.” -Jared Sparks from Washington granddaughter in 1834.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
12:10 pm
“Notwithstanding, it seems dismissive of reality to assert that this country was not founded under a code of morality derived from Judeo-Christian principles”
No.
American law governs this nation. American law is derived from English Common Law. The roots of English Common Law predate the arrival of Christianity in England by 178 years. There is no causal relationship. Morality and religiousness, while certainly not mutually exclusive, are not synonymous. Example: one need not refer to the Bible or Ten Commandments to know that it’s wrong to kill his neighbor, rape his wife, steal his pigs and burn down his house. This distinction is not derived from religion. If it is, if one must reference religious text to determine that it’s not okay to kill his neighbor, rape his wife, steal his pigs and burn down his house, then that individual is likely a sociopath.
getalife
March 7th, 2013
12:11 pm
The budget debate is over.
The dems raised taxes on the wealthy and the gop got their cuts
The gop will try to undo their cuts on defense but will fail.
The outreach is for his agenda.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
12:11 pm
Cheesy-
And which “loopholes” allow Romney to pay a smaller rate? Who proposed those loopholes and who voted for them. You will find democrats are not innocent here. BTW, half the rate of the average American? Don’t you mean half the rate of the average American that pays taxes? Particularly since 47% of Americans pay zero income taxes.
One last thought, do you pay income taxes cheesy and if so to you take the allowable deductions that available to you?
HDB
March 7th, 2013
12:13 pm
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
10:53 am
“cheesy- Now just like before with Clinton it will be up to a responsible Republican Congress to balance the books.”
Problem is….before Clinton, the ONLY Republican Congress that presided over a balanced budget was during the EISENHOWER Administration. Since then, the GOP hasn’t been responsible; the more fiscally responsible Congresses have been Democratic……contrary to what many believe…..
Clinton was put on the path towards a budget surplus because of the tax INCREASES that were passed in 1994…….
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:14 pm
@Tiberius…11:58…it’s official you have lost your ever loving mind…
You want to hold Obama responsible for FY 2009…the budget of $3.1 trillion that was submitted in Q1 of 2008 BEFORE he was the nominee of the Democratic Party, that was over 90% funded BEFORE he was elected and that every independant group that has looked at has held to be 90%+ the work of Duhbya et al…you are truly a maroon
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:14 pm
JDW, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
You rely on statistics only.
You’re incapable of discerning the deeper issues because you are blinded to to the concept of “context”. You are incapable of appropriate assigning blame to those that deserve it, because you are blinded to the concept that your beliefs cannot possibly be wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Which is why you’re generally considered a liar on this blog.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:16 pm
Particularly since 47% of Americans pay zero income taxes.
A big percentage of those are military and the elderly remember.
NoBodyYouKnow
March 7th, 2013
12:16 pm
Most people are so hooked on this Liberal and Conservative thing, and the politicians are so hooked on proving its not their fault. Its the other guys fault that nothing gets done. If ALL voters of ALL persuasions would get on the phone or on their computers and tell the politicians they are SICK and TIRED of all the bickering and expect them to get the country back on it financial feet it just may do some good. (but who knows?)
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:17 pm
One last thought, do you pay income taxes cheesy
Yes I do. And at a much higher rate than Mitt Romney.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:18 pm
Which is why you’re generally considered a liar on this blog.
Real reason for that is you dont like what he is saying.
Not that he is lying.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
12:18 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:58 am
” he owns FY 2009″
You’re wrong there, Tibbi….the federal fiscal year starts October 1 and ends on September 30; they changed it from starting July 1 and ending June 30. FY2009 started October 1, 2008….almost FOUR MONTHS before Obama was sworn in; those appropriations were done during the last BUSH term…..so Obama’s hand in the budgeting process doesn’t start until FY2010!!
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
12:19 pm
Cheesy-
I’ll bite, what is that percentage?
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
12:21 pm
Cheesy-
You forgot the second half of the question, do you take allowable deductions? We will assume the answer is yes. You know what that makes you Cheesy?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:21 pm
This is why JDW can never have a logical debate:
“You want to hold Obama responsible for FY 2009″
Yes.
“…the budget of $3.1 trillion that was submitted in Q1 of 2008 BEFORE he was the nominee of the Democratic Party,”
Submitted, but not yet passed NOR spent.
” that was over 90% funded BEFORE he was elected”
A lie.
” and that every independant group that has looked at has held to be 90%+ the work of Duhbya et al”
“The work” is in the budget’s CREATION, not it’s implementation and does not mean it cannot be changed by the CHIEF EXECUTIVE, JDW. After all, he’s spent much of his first term signing executive orders, but he has yet to do so on anything of a fiscal nature. You may not like it, but any chief executive can change the way dollars are spent once he gets into office, especially those under the control of the executive branch.
No wonder you like the guy so much. You both epitomize failure on a grand scale; he at leading and you at debating.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
12:22 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
11:46 am
“Name something good that has come about of liberalism. You can’t do it.”
How about the United States?? I’ll start there…….
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:25 pm
HDB, I suggest you read my 12:21.
President Incompetent had 8 months in which to corral spending in FY 2009 – he simply chose not to.
The inability of he and you to take responsibility for his actions (or lack thereof) is stunning.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:26 pm
““Name something good that has come about of liberalism. You can’t do it.”
How about the United States?? I’ll start there…….”
Once again, LIBERTARIANISM, not liberalism.
Learn the distinction, HDB
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
12:26 pm
Kyle your column brings up a good point: Washington politicians are masters of pretending they actually want to do something when their true interests are 1) getting reelected and 2) maintaining the status quo.
Remember the bi-partisan Erskine Bowles commission? They fought and bickered and cussed and fussed and finally came up with a blueprint. But it was too hard, and might not be popular with voters, so it wasn’t implemented.
And how about the Iraq study group? Another bi-partisan commission that came up with good ideas which were duly ignored, except for troop escalation.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:27 pm
“Real reason for that is you dont like what he is saying.”
Correct, Cheesy. I loathe liars.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:27 pm
@Tiberius…”Which is why you’re generally considered a liar on this blog.”
If I were considered anything else by you I would be doing it wrong. The proof as they say is in the pudding…or in your case the publicly documented trail of arrogant pompousness and failure.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:28 pm
Once again, LIBERTARIANISM, not liberalism.
Wrong. Liberalism.
We have been over this before.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:30 pm
“Example: one need not refer to the Bible or Ten Commandments to know that it’s wrong to kill his neighbor, rape his wife, steal his pigs and burn down his house.”
No, Breckenridge, but it’s a pretty good place to start. To deny that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian moral values of right and wrong is to deny reality, even if we are not in fact a Christian nation.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:32 pm
Tiberius…”You may not like it, but any chief executive can change the way dollars are spent once he gets into office, especially those under the control of the executive branch.”
So in your warped view of reality Obama should have taken office in the midst of the worst Recession since the 1930’s and called on Congress to revisit the prior budget, now more 6 months into it with an eye to slashing the funding established by his predecessor…yeah right
See my last post and add delusional to pompous and arrogant.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:33 pm
“We have been over this before.”
And as usual, you continue to ignore the reality that is in front of you because you are blinded by your ideology.
The Founding Fathers were, and will always be considered libertarians who believed in personal responsibility and a limited government.
Liberalism fails that test on each and every level.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:34 pm
To deny that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian moral values of right and wrong is to deny reality
Wrong again. ( Like a broken record )
They are based on English Common Law.
md
March 7th, 2013
12:34 pm
So according to JDW if I write a check to the power company and sign it in my name I didn’t really write that check…….ok, got it.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:35 pm
@Tiberius…”I loathe liars.”
See another difference between us you loathe and are loathed far more that I…I do however pity you.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
12:36 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:21 pm
Tibbi, the point that JDW is attempting to make is further clarified here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_republican_president_balanced_a_budget
“One point that is often misunderstood is that the budget for a President’s first year in office is set by the prior President.”
Since the budget is set in the PREVIOUS Administration, all the incoming President would have the capability of doing is signing off on what was already agreed to. As you have noted, Obama signed the FINAL appropriations in March of 2009…eight weeks INTO his Presidency. At the worst, Obama would be held responsible for those entities that were funded by those final signed appropriations….not the entire FY2009 budget….but it’s not seen in that light. FY2009 is viewed as the FINAL Bush budget……..
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:36 pm
@md…”So according to JDW if I write a check to the power company and sign it in my name I didn’t really write that check…….ok, got it.”
No, however if you buy a business in January and the power bill for December comes in March…you pay it.
md
March 7th, 2013
12:38 pm
And let’s not forget TARP, where a portion of the fundes were REQUESTED by Obama even though they get chalked up to Bush:
“Second Half of TARP
After Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, he asked President Bush to request the second half of the TARP funds to be allocated to TARP. In making the request, he stated that the economy was still too frail and that it would be irresponsible to enter office without having all the tools he needed to address the problem.
Funds Issued and Repaid
Of the funds issued by President Bush, a vast majority went to the Capital Purchase Program and the Targeted Investment Program. A vast majority of that money has been repaid by the financial institutions that received them. The loan to GM was repaid, but some money from the GM bailout remains.
Of the funds issued by President Obama, almost none of them have been issued to the programs originally designed through TARP. Most of the funds issued by President Obama have gone to home ownership programs and the bailout of GM through stock purchases. As seem in the chart below, almost 90% of the funds issued by President Bush have been returned while less than 10% of the money issued by President Obama has been returned.”
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/TARP/
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:38 pm
“Obama should have taken office in the midst of the worst Recession since the 1930’s and called on Congress to revisit the prior budget,”
No, he should have implemented executive orders which curbed spending in the departments under is control, WHICH HE HAD THE POWER TO DO. Now, you can make any claim you want about whether it was the right thing to do economically, but it doesn’t absolve him from the spending he could have cut IF HE CHOSE TO. Again, it might have been the wrong thing to do in your warped mind, JDW, but the onus of that spending is still on President Incompetent.
” now more 6 months into it”
Somebody can’t even count, and he’s trying to talk to us about trillion dollar budgets.
Try 8 months, JDW.
” with an eye to slashing the funding established by his predecessor…yeah right”
Which he was hired to to do with the powers that office holds.
Reality sucks, doesn’t it, JDW?
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:39 pm
“The Founding Fathers were, and will always be considered libertarians who believed in personal responsibility and a limited government.”
So proclaims the Emperor Tiberius…he of the new clothes in perpetuity.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
12:39 pm
fact “check” is for saps.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:40 pm
“They are based on English Common Law.”
Which are, in turn, ultimately based on Judeo-Christian values.
Stop being so dense, Cheesy.
md
March 7th, 2013
12:40 pm
“No, however if you buy a business in January and the power bill for December comes in March…you pay it.”
First off, if the power bill comes 3 months after I use it the power company has problems.
And ever heard of negotiating with creditors?
The fact remains that Obama signed that bill, NOT Bush…….Obama is the one that had the choice.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:42 pm
@MD…TARP
The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[
You mean the one that Obama reduced and has cost a total of $24 billion….try again
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:42 pm
No, however if you buy a business in January and the power bill for December comes in March…you pay it.
Its fairly simple but you arent going to get that through to these people.
There is no changing them. The best we can hope for is people reading this have good sense and blunt some of their nonsense.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
12:42 pm
Cheesy-
Guess I was right, you decry one person taking lawful deductions on their income tax while you take your lawful deductions. Hypocrite! Maybe you just have “income envy”. Just a thought.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:43 pm
When you’ve got nothing but lies, post ONLY the insult as JDW does.
Of course, when someone cannot make the case that the Founding Fathers didn’t believe in personal responsibility and limited government, when all evidence points to that fact, all they have left is insults and lies.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:45 pm
“No, however if you buy a business in January and the power bill for December comes in March…you pay it. ”
Of course you pay it, but if you don’t immediately start looking for ways to cut your power bill, your responsible for that bill being high the rest of the year.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:45 pm
@Tiberius…”No, he should have implemented executive orders which curbed spending in the departments under is control, WHICH HE HAD THE POWER TO DO. Now, you can make any claim you want about whether it was the right thing to do economically, but it doesn’t absolve him from the spending he could have cut IF HE CHOSE TO. Again, it might have been the wrong thing to do in your warped mind, JDW, but the onus of that spending is still on President Incompetent.”
Hogwash…take that thought and go on over to the corner with the rest of the drooling old f@rts…that thinking went out with Hoover.
TiredOfIt
March 7th, 2013
12:46 pm
libertarians are the party of the slots
HDB
March 7th, 2013
12:46 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:26 pm
“Once again, LIBERTARIANISM, not liberalism.”
Both words are derived from the infinitive “TO LIBERATE”….which means “to set or become FREE”; liberalism The difference is that liberals want personal freedom and a well-regulated business sector..and libertarians want personal freedom and a laissez-faire, i.e., unregulated business sector.
In this case, Tibbi…it would be LIBERALISM…..
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
12:49 pm
Guess I was right, you decry one person taking lawful deductions on their income tax while you take your lawful deductions. Hypocrite! Maybe you just have “income envy”. Just a thought.
No. I just think it would be fair if Mitt Romney paid the same rate I do.
I really dont think that is asking too much.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:50 pm
“The difference is that liberals want personal freedom and a well-regulated business sector.”
Which is the antithesis of limited government, HDB.
Nice try, but they were, and will always be considered by people without an agenda as libertarians.
JDW
March 7th, 2013
12:51 pm
Thankfully I need to go out and interact with some people that have some sense and leave ya’ll to your echo chambers for a while.
You dream and spin all you want but facts are facts. Social Security and Medicare are NOT big contributors to our current deficits, Duhbya owned FY2009 less about $200 billion in a generous assessment and Tiberius is a delusional pompous arrogant…well you know.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:53 pm
“Hogwash”
Ah, the depth of debate with JDW knows no bounds . . . .
Again, you may not like what one particular course of action was available to him, but you may not absolve him of responsibility if he willingly chose not to exercise that course of action.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
12:53 pm
In addition to Mr. Cruz and Mr. Lee, others who showed up and spoke included Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, John Cornyn of Texas, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakotaand Mitch McConnell, the GOP floor leader, who made a late-night appearance to congratulate his fellow Kentuckian.
What the hell was Taxby doing amongst all these Patriots? Was he just hanging with the crowd again?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:54 pm
“Thankfully I need to go out and interact with some people that have some sense”
As if JDW knows any conservatives. . . .
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:55 pm
“I just think it would be fair if Mitt Romney paid the same rate I do.”
He does. On every penny of income he earns.
indigo
March 7th, 2013
12:56 pm
Tiberius – 12:33 “the founding fathers were, and always will be considered libertarians”
Wrong again.
Maybe you should look up the word “research” in the dictionary.
http://www.politicususa.com/founding-fathers-liberal.html
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
12:58 pm
Cheesy-
Is Romney doing anything illegal? No. If you had his income would you take the deductions that are allowed? Yes. Then why don’t you convince Congress to change the law instead of bellyaching over something you would do if you could.
Do you support the Fair Tax? A flat tax? Either of those will accomplish what you wish to accomplish. Or is it that what you really want is to use the tax code to redistribute income from the rich to the less rich?
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
1:01 pm
“No, Breckenridge, but it’s a pretty good place to start. To deny that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian moral values of right and wrong is to deny reality, even if we are not in fact a Christian nation.”
No, you are absolutely 100% wrong. You are confusing religiousness with morality and you are making a statement that simply is not supported by facts. Do the research yourself – here I’ll get you started. Thomas Jefferson covered this extensively in his Notes On the State of Virginia.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:01 pm
He does. On every penny of income he earns.
He does not.
I pay a much higher rate than he does.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:04 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:50 pm
“The difference is that liberals want personal freedom and a well-regulated business sector.”
Which is the antithesis of limited government, HDB.
Wrong again, Tibbi….review Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
Section. 8.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
……..
And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The framers have written that part of the role of limited government IS to regulate commerce….which means to place proper regulations on the business sector so that ALL of the people can receive the benefits therein……
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:06 pm
Or is it that what you really want is to use the tax code to redistribute income from the rich to the less rich?
We already do that and always have.
In America people who make it to the top and become rich should do so because of their talent and hard work.
Not because they are a trust fund baby and were born into it.
America has always been about redistibution of wealth. Its a very healthy thing.
Unfortunately with super low tax rates on the rich this is happening less and less.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:06 pm
“They are based on English Common Law.”
Tiberius: “Which are, in turn, ultimately based on Judeo-Christian values.”
Another myth from Tibberville.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:08 pm
Indigo, if you are not going to apply your brain to something and just follow what others tell you (which of course is the definition of a liberal), then why are you even bothering to show up here?
Do some research on libertarianism for crying out loud before you go back into your echo chamber.
Go to their website and take their short quiz. One thing you’ll find out is that the left-right, liberal-conservative political dynamic is completely false as regards how this country actually is aligned. Instead of a straight line, they use a diamond which adds (to the usual left / right / moderate alignments) options for libertarian (the Founding Fathers) and authoritarian (Hillary Clinton) based on how you answer the questions.
A much more accurate gauge of the country’s alignment than the straight line of thought you have.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:08 pm
Cheesy-
If you want to be critical of someone and the tax code, first learn the tax code. On earned income of course his rate is the same as anyone else with that same amount of income. His “lower rates” is because the vast majority of his income is from dividends, interest and capital gains. Those things are taxed at a lower rate to encourage investment.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:08 pm
Another myth from Tibberville.
They flow like a mighty stream around here.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:09 pm
“Another myth from Tibberville.”
Because, of course, in MarkVville, the Ten Commandments never existed.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:10 pm
On earned income of course his rate is the same as anyone else with that same amount of income. His “lower rates” is because the vast majority of his income is from dividends, interest and capital gains.
Right. So instead of taking a salary he gets his money that way.
So he can pay a much lower tax rate than most Americans.
Its shameful.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:11 pm
Cheesy-
Again, how uninformed you are. Was Romney born into wealth? Yes. What did Romney do with his inheritance? He gave it away. Romney is rich because of what he earned as a businessman, not because he was a trust baby? Good grief
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:12 pm
“which means to place proper regulations on the business sector so that ALL of the people can receive the benefits therein……”
And the difference between what is considered “proper” is the difference between liberals and libertarians, JDW.
Anyone who believes that the Founding Fathers would agree with the size and scope of our current liberal-created government is not playing with a full deck.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:12 pm
the Ten Commandments never existed
Is adultery illegal ?
How about coveting ?
Taking the lords name in vain ?
If all our laws are based on the Ten Comandments they sure left out parts.
getalife
March 7th, 2013
1:13 pm
“Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a former Wall Street executive, is joining Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) to introduce legislation that would deregulate derivatives, undercutting one of the most meaningful elements of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.” HP
There is your bipartisanship.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:14 pm
Cheesy-
You continue to show how uninformed you are. To have earned income you have to have a job and receive a paycheck, Romney is living off his investments that he payed earned income tax on. When he was governor, he served without pay, same has the head of the Utah winter games.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:15 pm
“Because, of course, in MarkVville, the Ten Commandments never existed”
Because, of course, Tiberius does not know what he is talking about.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:15 pm
“You are confusing religiousness with morality and you are making a statement that simply is not supported by facts.”
Not confusing them, breckenridge – LINKING them. I am not saying that it is possible for someone without religion to be moral, but I am saying that our laws ARE based on the morality of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:15 pm
Romney is rich because of what he earned as a businessman, not because he was a trust baby? Good grief
LOL
Yeah he had it pretty rough.
He is the example of a trust fund baby. Every door was opened for him.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:17 pm
“Because, of course, Tiberius does not know what he is talking about.”
Of course, in a logical debate the person challenging things that they believe are incorrect would now post something which proves their point.
Which is why MarkV can only resort to insults.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:19 pm
but I am saying that our laws ARE based on the morality of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
And you are 100 percent wrong.
I think we have settled this. Any new business.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:19 pm
Cheesy-
Going have to stop debating you, the facts mean nothing, so what’s the point. You are the perfect example of what is wrong with America. You won’t be satisfied until you have destroyed this country. Congrats, you are well on your way.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:19 pm
“Every door was opened for him.”
Really, Cheesy?
Please detail your lifetime of experience in living with and working with Mitt Romney.
Your insight and direct knowledge would be enlightening.
For a change.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:20 pm
“And you are 100 percent wrong.”
And at this point is a logical debate, the person disagreeing would provide something known as “facts” which might be used to dispel the other person’s notion.
Which is why Cheesy doesn’t do so.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:22 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:12 pm
Tibbi, the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the nation as it is at present….so as the nation has grown, the size and scope of government has, by necessity, expanded with said growth! Now don’t get me wrong…there have been some regulations placed on business that are onerous and need to be removed (and I’m a liberal)….but the majority of regulations are designed so that ALL of the nation benefits from the economy! Some regulations determine business practices…some determine environmental effect. The Founders probably only saw environmental damage as needing a shovel to rectify; now, there’s more to encompass…..
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:22 pm
“If all our laws are based on the Ten Comandments they sure left out parts.”
And did anyone say ALL our laws, Cheesy?
No.
Only an idiot would make that claim.
Or debate the claim was made.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:26 pm
“Tibbi, the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the nation as it is at present….so as the nation has grown, the size and scope of government has, by necessity, expanded with said growth! ”
And once again, there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers would have ever agreed with SS, Medicare, welfare, the government control of education, or the policeman of the world’s problems.
Libertarians, HDB.
Say it with me.
Libertarians.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
1:26 pm
The United States was founded by people that were seeking freedom from religious persecution and the free practice thereof. No other reason. None. Not to come and kill indians for pleasure like your whackjob college professor told you. It was for the freedom to practice their religion. The founders were very religious and were also very decent people not entirely focused upon themselves, unlike today’s liberals.
They were men, not metros.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:28 pm
Tiberius @ 1:17 pm
“Of course, in a logical debate the person challenging things that they believe are incorrect would now post something which proves their point.”
As Tiberius has done, when he challenged Cheesy’s comment?
“Which is why MarkV can only resort to insults.”
Says Tiberius, the premier offender.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:30 pm
“As Tiberius has done, when he challenged Cheesy’s comment?”
Which time, Oh debate-challenged One?
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
1:31 pm
Let’s break it down here…..
Sixth Commandment – Thou shalt not kill. Under US law killing, in most circumstances, is a crime punishable by imprisonment or death.
Eighth Commandment – Thou shalt not steal. Under US law stealing is a crime punishable by probation or imprisonment.
Seventh Commandment – Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is a crime under US law….oops! it’s not a crime? Hmm, I’m sensing a disconnect here. Although in Puritan New England adultery was a crime punishable by death. They were totally whacked.
Third Commandment – Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord God in vain. Well my goodness talk about needing more jails! Good thing there is no crime here or we’d have more jailed than jailers.
Morality and religion, similar but certainly not identical.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:31 pm
btw, MarkV, your entire contribution to this blog today has been to insult someone.
Are you going to do anything else, or are you too afraid to have your warped views exposed for what they are again today?
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:32 pm
Some of the most important elements of modern system of law, such as ours:
Equality before the law.
The accused is innocent until proven guilty.
The accused has a right to defend himself and to know his accuser.
Anybody wants to find that in Ten Commandments, or the bible for that matter?
Just Saying..
March 7th, 2013
1:33 pm
Oh man, won’t this President leave al Qaeda alone? Captured bin Laden’s SIL? I thought it was the deficit he should focus on.
Oh, right. He didn’t have anything to do with it. It was President Bush’s accomplishment…
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:34 pm
Tiberius @1:31 pm
“btw, MarkV, your entire contribution to this blog today has been to insult someone.”
Another lie from the premier offender.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:36 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:26 pm
“And once again, there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers would have ever agreed with SS, Medicare, welfare, the government control of education, or the policeman of the world’s problems.”
In many ways, Tibbi……the evidence exists that the Founders would have!!
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
SS/Medicare/Medicaid — “promote the general Welfare”, i.e, health and well-being of the nation
Education — “secure the Blessings of Liberty…”, i.e., how do you know how good you’ve got it unless you know the alternatives…on a MASSIVE scale!!??
“Policeman of the world’s problems” — ” insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,”…and our POSTERITY….
….as I said, Tibbi…LIBERALS…….
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:39 pm
“Morality and religion, similar but certainly not identical.”
And if anyone was arguing identical, you’d be on point, breckenridge.
Your poutrage is noted.
Stop arguing in absolutes. The extremes are what gets everyone in life in trouble.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Never before have you written such garbage, HDB.
As has been submitted before, PROMOTE the general welfare does not equate to PROVIDE the general welfare. Two different words, two very different meanings.
How does “securing the blessings of liberty” mean public education? Make the case with FACTS, please, not emotion.
And providing for the common defense speaks to the defense of THIS nation, not OTHER nations and their defense.
Are you even familiar with the concept of logical argument?
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Tibbi….to counter your “liberal vs libertarian” argument……
http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/12/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalis
Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism
What’s the best way to secure everyone’s mastery over his or her own destiny?
Sheldon Richman | August 12, 2012
“In The Future of Liberalism (2009), Alan Wolfe writes that the true heirs to the liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson are not today’s classical liberals (libertarians), but rather the other kind of liberals, those who would use government power to assure autonomy and equality for all. Such “modern liberalism,” for Wolfe, is simply an updating of the original: In the eighteenth century, political power crushed autonomy and equality, requiring a free market as the antidote; now private corporate power under capitalism does the same, but this time the remedy is active government.”
independent thinker
March 7th, 2013
1:51 pm
KYLE- you are correct that I misread the years on table 3.1 of the OMB historical spending data. However the expenditure in 2000 for defense was $294 billion when George W. took office. It is now projected at over $710 billion for 2012. Again where is that $420 or so billion a year increase and others for twelve years supposed to come from????????Please explain how a severe decrease in tax revenue due to tax cuts by an administration trying to buy votes and contributions from the rich and an administration that gives free unfunded drugs for the elderly justifies cutting social security and Medicare????????????????
Tell us the math that justifies this total recklessness by the stupid party. I have yet to hear a sensible explanation from you or one of your resident cons who apparently could care less about the basic math of what caused the increase in the deficit over recent years.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:52 pm
So, HDB, you’re now (finally) admitting that the definition of liberals in the 18th century is now considered libertarianism today.
Good for you. You’ve finally come around to agreement with me.
The problem is that (as I have always maintained) is that the Founding Fathers are today’s libertarians, and not today’s liberals.
Congratulations on achieving enlightenment.
@@
March 7th, 2013
1:58 pm
True to CRFB’s bipartisan credentials, MacGuineas doesn’t put all the emphasis on the spending side. She also points to the $1 trillion in annual “tax expenditures,” subsidies hidden in the tax code rather than appropriations bills.
“Nobody looks at them,”
I DO!
If it ain’t goin’ out, it’s staying put. The bulk of THAT revenue should go towards reducing our debt.
What kind of parent is willing to dump a load of debt on their children? Not me!!!
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
1:59 pm
cheesy- To deny that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian moral values of right and wrong is to deny reality. Wrong again. ( Like a broken record )
Since you everything and we are mere peasants, please list all of the Judeo-Christian moral values that go against our rule of law (since they have nothing in common).
HDB
March 7th, 2013
2:01 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Tibbi…in certain cases, to PROMOTE a function also entails PROVIDING the FUNDING! One may…and in certain instances…. DOES incorporate the other.
At times, in order to defend this nation, you have to defend other nations to keep the battle away from the homeland (or as you President Bush said…”take the battle to them”). Remember, the only wars fought on the homeland were to KEEP the homeland intact. NO foreign power has invaded nor had to be repelled from the US mainland.
“Securing the blessings of liberty” encompasses many facets…including teaching about the nation and the responsibilities of its citizens. When the Founders were teaching their aspects of civic responsibility, it could be done in a small environment. As the nation grew, the ability of teaching the masses had to grow proportionately. Now look at what citizens (native-born and immigrant) have to learn (remember your American History and Civics classes)……what entity can handle teaching such to the MASSES?? That encompasses PUBLIC EDUCATION!!
Logical argument….
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
2:03 pm
“And if anyone was arguing identical, you’d be on point, breckenridge.”
Yes, if they were identical we’d have Biblical Law. That experiment has been tried here, by the Puritans, but failed. Those are the same Puritans that left England to escape religious persecution and came to America so they could practice religious persecution. Don’t agree with our beliefs? Goodbye Roger Williams, goodbye Anne Hutchinson, goodbye John Wheelright, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Although to be fair one of the main reasons had to get rid of Anne Hutchinson is simply because she was smarter than they were, John Winthrop included, and they just couldn’t tolerate in a woman.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
2:06 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:52 pm
No, Tibbi…I don’t agree!! Note what the article said: libertarians are NOT equivalent to Locke, Jefferson, and Smith….but MODERN LIBERALS are the update to the originals!! Your dyslexia is showing again!!
Lt Dan
March 7th, 2013
2:07 pm
Could we all agree that a major way to address our country’s finances would be to reform the current tax code?
How about we scrap it in total and replace it with a system where those who use the best lobbyists do not get the best tax credits? And to that end, a code with no tax credits for anyone?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:13 pm
“Tibbi…in certain cases, to PROMOTE a function also entails PROVIDING the FUNDING! One may…and in certain instances…. DOES incorporate the other.”
Only if you completely ignore the meanings of both “promote” and “provide”, HDB. In case you missed it, you may not.
“At times, in order to defend this nation, you have to defend other nations to keep the battle away from the homeland (or as you President Bush said…”take the battle to them”). Remember, the only wars fought on the homeland were to KEEP the homeland intact.”
And yet somehow I don’t think your support for GWB’s invasion of Iraq is anything but new-found and serves only as a means to make your preposterous notion of “common defence” hold water.
“NO foreign power has invaded nor had to be repelled from the US mainland.”
More to do with the fact that we are bordered by two very large oceans and allies (and the fact that we could kick anyone’s butt who tried) than anything else, HDB.
“Securing the blessings of liberty” encompasses many facets…including teaching about the nation and the responsibilities of its citizens.”
If you were to define each of the words “Securing” “The” “Blessings” “of” “Liberty”, you would not find the word “education” in any of them. As such, your argument is not based on logic at all, but is contrived in the extreme based on your liberal beliefs, not in reality nor logic.
Logical Dude
March 7th, 2013
2:14 pm
It comes down to this quote:
MacGuineas said voters “bear a huge responsibility” for continuing to “elect people with a bunch of promises that just are not workable, but they sound good.” That said, she insisted voters “should be able to trust their elected leaders to lead an honest discussion about it. … And that’s not happening.”
People can pressure politicians all they want, but so far ALL politicians who run duck the issue.
They change the subject.
They talk a good game.
They agree with everyone about everything.
They engage nicely.
Until they get elected, then they become partisan pawns who can’t get anything done.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:15 pm
No dyslexia, HDB. I just understand the English language better than you.
@@
March 7th, 2013
2:16 pm
Could we all agree that a major way to address our country’s finances would be to reform the current tax code?
And to that end, a code with no tax credits for anyone?
I’m on board!
It would cut the ties that bind and stop the infighting that exists among Americans. No more victims…no more whining.
Don't Tread
March 7th, 2013
2:17 pm
“liberals want personal freedom”
Except those freedoms they don’t agree with, especially when exercised by people they don’t like.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:17 pm
“No more victims…no more whining.”
But then what would liberals do, @@?
Hillbilly D
March 7th, 2013
2:18 pm
Is adultery illegal ?
In this state it is, Georgia Code 16-6-19.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:22 pm
Oh, and HDB?
Alan Wolfe? Not exactly an objective authority on liberalism vs. libertarianism.
“Earlier in his career, Wolfe was a member of the collective that put out the Marxist-oriented journal, Kapitalistate, whose pages featured articles by such writers as Poulantzas, Claus Offe, Ralph Miliband, and Bob Jessop. By the early 1980s, Wolfe’s politics had become more centrist. In 2004, one author characterized him as a radical centrist thinker.[3]
A contributing editor of The New Republic, The Wilson Quarterly, Commonwealth Magazine, and In Character, Wolfe writes often for those publications as well as for Commonweal, The New York Times, Harper’s, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, World Affairs and other magazines and newspapers. He served as an advisor to President Bill Clinton in preparation for his 1995 State of the Union Address and has lectured widely at American and European universities.”
@@
March 7th, 2013
2:24 pm
The sin of adultery is paid for in divorce court.
schnirt
Tiberius:
What would they do?
Spend the time figuring out how to resolve their OWN problems?
HDB
March 7th, 2013
2:27 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:13 pm
“Only if you completely ignore the meanings of both “promote” and “provide”, HDB. In case you missed it, you may not.”
Better think again, Tibbi…..as per Thesaurus.com:
promote: Definition: help, advance
Synonyms: advertise, advocate, aid, assist, avail, back, befriend, benefit, bolster, boost, build up*, call attention to, champion, contribute, cooperate, cry*, develop, encourage, endorse, espouse, forward, foster, further, get behind, hype*, improve, nourish, nurture, patronize, plug*, popularize, propagandize, publicize, puff, push, push for, recommend, sell, serve, speak for, speed, sponsor, stimulate, SUBSIDIZE, succor, SUPPORT, uphold, urge, work for.
Main Entry: securing
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: acquiring
Synonyms: acquisition, attaining, procuring, winning
How does one acquire the necessary knowledge required of an American citizen if not via education?
Definitions not ignored…….and I DO understand the English language to a broader level than you, Tibbi……guess it’s due to the catholic education I secured!! (…and in this case, catholic means universal, not religious!)
HDB
March 7th, 2013
2:34 pm
…and BTW, Tibbi…I DID attend Catholic schools in both my earlier years….and grad school for five years…so I have a catholic and Catholic educational background………….
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
2:44 pm
“liberals want personal freedom”
Liberals: for “choice” as long as you are talking about abortion. Otherwise, shut up and do what the government tells you because you are too stupid to think for yourself.
Numbers-R-US
March 7th, 2013
2:48 pm
According to these charts the first thing we need to do is give the wealthiest more tax cuts. Eventually they’ll start their trickle down and then all will be right in the world. That is how it works, isn’t it.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
2:50 pm
Otherwise, shut up and do what the government tells you because you are too stupid to think for yourself.
Strawman
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:53 pm
Note the one synonym that was NOT in your definition of “promote”, HDB?
Go back and find the word “provide” and get back to me.
“How does one acquire the necessary knowledge required of an American citizen if not via education?”
And your continued inability to show where it is the province of the Federal government to provide such education is noted and logged, HDB.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:56 pm
Off to relax in a nice warm bath and later earn a few shekels to help privately stimulate our economy without going into debt.
To my conservative friends, keep up the good fight.
To my liberal acquaintances, keep creating arguments out of thin air.
getalife
March 7th, 2013
3:15 pm
Our President signed the violence against women act to add to his legacy.
Gun background check is next then immigration.
Real Athens
March 7th, 2013
3:27 pm
Let Freedom Ring!
Ga. debates relaxing gun laws for mentally ill
By RAY HENRY
From Associated Press
March 07, 2013 2:47 PM EST
ATLANTA (AP) — While some states push to tighten gun control laws, some Georgia lawmakers are trying to ease rules preventing some mentally ill people from getting licenses to carry firearms.
Legislation up for a vote Thursday would allow people who have voluntarily sought inpatient treatment for mental illness or substance abuse to get such licenses.
The same bill also attempts to make it easier for officials to check on whether applicants have ever received involuntary treatment. Georgia also may change its laws to allow people to carry guns in churches, bars and on college campuses.
Judges now have discretion over whether to issue a license to carry a weapon to anyone who has received inpatient treatment at a mental hospital or substance abuse treatment center in the last five years.
Hillbilly D
March 7th, 2013
3:28 pm
Our President signed the violence against women act to add to his legacy.
I thought violence against women, or anybody else for that matter, was illegal, already.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
3:35 pm
Another Non Accomplishment.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
3:36 pm
…as per your request, Tibbi…..
Main Entry: provide
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: supply, SUPPORT
Synonym and definition are tied in together, Tibbi….so to secure does entail provision…..
QED…..
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
3:37 pm
I thought violence against women, or anybody else for that matter, was illegal, already.
The legislation passed on a vote of 286 to 138, with 199 Democrats joining 87 Republicans in support of the reauthorization of the landmark 1994 law, which assists victims of domestic and sexual violence.It amounted to a significant victory for the president and Congressional Democrats, who have assailed Republicans for months for stalling the legislation.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
3:52 pm
I thought violence against women, or anybody else for that matter, was illegal, already.
It is, but if you can’t reasonably access the legal system then the law is sort of a technicality.
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
3:57 pm
It’s all political theatre. One law protecting women is not enforced to their liking, so they pass another as if having a second will ensure enforcement.
Keep in mind this is the same group that thinks everyone should pay for women to have free birth control pills.
No wonder we are going down the poop shoot.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
4:06 pm
this is the same group that thinks everyone should pay for women to have free birth control pills.
Those darned uppity women, when they pay for insurance they think it should cover stuff like pills for medical conditions.
What’s next—taxpayers footing the bill for rape kits?
indigo
March 7th, 2013
4:15 pm
Aquagirl
And a large gourp of people in Georgia actually had the nerve to ask the Legislature to force insurance companies to cover autism.
Thank goodness a few good Republicans stood up to these people and protected our insurance companies.
Just imagine those people. Actually thinking our legislature cares anything for the people.
Rafe Hollister
March 7th, 2013
4:15 pm
Our President signed the violence against women act to add to his legacy.
Add the Lilly Ledbetter Act and his proficiency as the worlds greatest firearm salesman, and he has three accomplishments.
Construction to add him and Jimmy Carter to Mount Rushmore will begin any day now.
Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)
March 7th, 2013
4:16 pm
Don’t waste my tax dollahs trying to pertect them womens.
Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)
March 7th, 2013
4:17 pm
whaaaaa
I’m a white male and this legislation doesn’t do a thing for me.
Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)
March 7th, 2013
4:18 pm
Holder’s argument, however, is indefensible. There is no reason a bank with billions of assets could not survive the indictment of its CEO or CFO.
If the Fed and Treasury can “foam the runway” to protect otherwise insolvent banks from collapse, they surely could insure that a bank survives while its executives are held personally responsible for their crimes. Putting a few bankers in jail and holding them personally accountable for their frauds would do much to bring sobriety back to Wall Street. alternet
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
4:20 pm
HDB, you’ve failed again. Our President Bush didn’t spend $3.5 trillion in 2009, he was only in office 3 months of that fiscal year. Obozo and a Democrat congress ratcheted up the spending to that level AND OBOZO AND A DO-NOTHING SENATE HAS KEPT IT THERE for four years.
Your messiah is solely responsible for $6 trillion in new debt in his first term.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
4:21 pm
If obozo resigned and didn’t tell anybody, how would we know?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
4:22 pm
If obozo governed in the forest, would it make a sound?
It damn sure doesn’t at the white house.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
4:25 pm
Only worthless losers need their neighbors to buy them a $1 condom.
Pay your own way, scumbags.
Jefferson
March 7th, 2013
4:26 pm
Still sore about the election it appears.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
4:28 pm
I am surprised we made this long without having a real president. Although I do suspect our time is nigh.
jconservative
March 7th, 2013
4:36 pm
The Senate just approved Brennan for CIA ending a two week delay over the authority of the President to use drones. Kudos to Rand Paul. Except. He will need to do the same thing when there is a new president. What one president says has no effect on those who follow him in office.
But Paul got the PR.
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
4:37 pm
Water Girl – pregnancy is not a medical condtion. It’s a natural body function. Try again.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
4:39 pm
Only worthless losers need their neighbors to buy them a $1 condom.
A $1 condom doesn’t do much for endometriosis.
Not that Lil’ Barry cares one bit for anyone with different plumbing, it’s all there for his enjoyment and paying for maintenance—hellz naw.
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
5:02 pm
endometriosis, now that’s a medical condition. Covered by insurance even before Obamacare.
In fact, I don’t have a problem with insurance providing free birth control pills as long as it is not dictated by government.
Nationalization of healthcare – unAmerican.
curious
March 7th, 2013
5:02 pm
Sen paul got his answer on the President’s authority to use drones against US citizens in the US.
Did he think about asking the same question regarding Airliners being shot down by F-16s?
Rafe Hollister
March 7th, 2013
5:03 pm
A $1 condom doesn’t do much for endometriosis.
It was my understanding that B/C pills used to treat medical conditions, were previously paid for by health insurance, before Obamacare. So, what is your point?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
5:05 pm
I see HDB is playing this game with words now in order to justify his rewriting of the dictionary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon
Epic fail, HDB.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
5:09 pm
“It is, but if you can’t reasonably access the legal system then the law is sort of a technicality.”
Yeah, ’cause all that money we spend in indigent legal care is never used.
Spare us from the phony “access” argument, Aquagirl. Everybody has access, just as with health care.
You and your lib buddies just like to change the name when you start losing the argument.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
5:11 pm
“Did he think about asking the same question regarding Airliners being shot down by F-16s?”
And I’m still waiting for that news item regarding any airliner hijacked by American citizens that was shot down by an F-16 via Presidential order.
Got a link to that, curious?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
5:13 pm
“Holder’s argument, however, is indefensible.”
Stating the obvious, Finn.
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
5:23 pm
Bob Beckel just stated on “The Five” that he fells like a fire hydrant at the Westminister Dog Show (as to defending Obama and his lackies on their chicken little act over the sequestor).
Bob further stated that Obama decided about a week ago they had gone too far and another strategy is necessary.
How about the truth? I know that would be a new experience for Obama, but it seems exactly what is needed.
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
5:27 pm
I received a video from a friend yesterday of a new weapon called Switchblade. If you are not familiar, it’s housed in a square container that looks about 3 fee long and is shoulder fired. Upon launch, the wings unfold, the propeller engine starts up, and you get video from the camera as it flys away. Remotely controlled it flys to the destination guided and crashes into and explodes when hitting the objective.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
5:28 pm
It was my understanding that B/C pills used to treat medical conditions, were previously paid for by health insurance
And you know this because:
a) You are a doctor.
b) You have some other job in the healthcare industry.
c) You heard it “somewhere,” probably the same place you heard about those $5 birth control pills.
md
March 7th, 2013
5:36 pm
“You mean the one that Obama reduced and has cost a total of $24 billion….try again”
Too funny…..now it’s not spending under Obama but it still is under Bush. That is called funky math.
Why is it never subtracted from the budget numbers you guys keep posting on Bush then?
md
March 7th, 2013
5:39 pm
“It is, but if you can’t reasonably access the legal system then the law is sort of a technicality.”
Access is granted to everybody while affordability is granted to no one………
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
5:42 pm
So what have we learned today, boys and girls?
We learned that JDW cannot accurately subtract 4 from 12, yet loves to talk about his knowledge of trillion dollar budgets.
We learned that HDB and Cheesy think that liberals and libertarians are the same thing, even if the source HDB uses was a former Marxist (kinda like using Elizabeth Warren as your source to help you define what a Cherokee Indian is) and Cheesy doesn’t even bother to cite any sources.
We learned that “promote” and “provide” are actually two different words with very different meanings, even though HDB struggled to find a connection through Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
We learned that MarkV hasn’t recovered from his spanking yesterday over drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil.
We learned that Aquagirl still doesn’t understand that “access” to something doesn’t mean “the ability to pay for it”.
Finally, we learned that no liberal on this blog wants to blame President Incompetent for anything that has or hasn’t been done on his watch if it reflects badly on him, and are willing to heap praises on him for everything good, including the sun rising this morning.
Actually, that last one is standard operating procedure each and every day on Kyle’s blog.
md
March 7th, 2013
5:42 pm
” On earned income of course his rate is the same as anyone else with that same amount of income. His “lower rates” is because the vast majority of his income is from dividends, interest and capital gains.
Right. So instead of taking a salary he gets his money that way.
So he can pay a much lower tax rate than most Americans.
Its shameful.”
You might want to rethink that one Cheesy unless you are saying it’s shameful to be retired in this country as most of them draw their money from the same sources……
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
5:51 pm
Spare us from the phony “access” argument, Aquagirl. Everybody has access, just as with health care.
Sure they do, it’s not like cops would charge one group of crime victims for the cost of a forensic investigation. That would never happen, unless you’re unfortunate enough to live in a place run by dumb@$$es. Like a place with the initials W-a-s-i-l-l-a.
No problem here ladies, Tiberius has blatted his standard wazoo decree and if you can’t get your stalking order enforced it’s all in your head.
JohnnyReb
March 7th, 2013
5:54 pm
Borrowing from Tiberius – another thing we learned today is the Falcons can get pretty much anything they want from the City of Atlanta and the State regardless of those “poor” people the Left constantly talks about.
Maybe we should ask Blank to go to Washington and show Obama and Congress how to reduce the debt while lowering taxes.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
5:58 pm
We have learned today that Tiberius is as ignorant and obnoxious as always, and keeps lying about others as always.
NoBodyYouKnow
March 7th, 2013
6:01 pm
BLA,BLA,BLA, those damn “cons”. BLA, BLA, BLA, those damn ‘LIBERALS”. on and on untill we all fall in a large HOLE, like that poor man in Flordia.
curious
March 7th, 2013
6:20 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
“And I’m still waiting for that news item regarding any airliner hijacked by American citizens that was shot down by an F-16 via Presidential order.”
That scenario is about as hpothetical as drone strikes aginst US citizens in the US that haven’t happened. At the time there was no certainity about the citizenship of the hijackers and you would probably agree that any aircraft approaching DC after the Pentagon strike would probably have been shot down.
yuzeyurbrane
March 7th, 2013
6:25 pm
Nice cliche’. Where is her proof that aging is driving the national debt? There is none.
td
March 7th, 2013
6:37 pm
NoBodyYouKnow
March 7th, 2013
6:01 pm
You have been on hear whining like a baby all afternoon about the Conservative agenda or the Progressive agenda. At least the two sides have a philosophy to guide them. I have a great deal more respect for the progressives on this board then I do you because you are so uninformed that you do not have a clue.
Rafe Hollister
March 7th, 2013
7:03 pm
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-80-percent-of-recent-nyc-high-school-graduates-cannot-read/
Where is Fineesy? I thought the Blue States were something we should try to emulate. I think in Georgia at least 40% of HS graduates can read.
Bruno
March 7th, 2013
7:05 pm
Well damn, that was a lot of arguing today!!
And now for something to cool everyone down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy6opyiOfNA
Rafe Hollister
March 7th, 2013
7:11 pm
And you know this because:
AG
It was in a video I saw on Utube! (worked for Obama)
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
7:14 pm
The storm marched into the Mid-Atlantic region Wednesday, dumping nearly two feet of snow in parts of Virginia and West Virginia and knocking out power to about 250,000 homes and businesses. It largely spared the nation’s capital, which was expecting much worse and had all but shut down.
You got that? Home of the Weather Experts, the very people who can predict what will happen fifty years from now if we don’t repent and cast off the industrial age? And they can’t even predict whether they’ll get snow in the Kremlin or not?
My, aren’t we impressed.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
7:20 pm
Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-80-percent-of-recent-nyc-high-school-graduates-cannot-read/
Now remember, this is one of the “smart” liberal states.
And my guess is, they’ve been cooking their test scores.
Georgia moves up another notch!
Hillbilly D
March 7th, 2013
7:22 pm
Bruno @ 7:05
Nice selection.
another thing we learned today is the Falcons can get pretty much anything they want from the City of Atlanta and the State
Money talks, BS walks and the rich keep getting richer. A good gig if you can get it, I guess.
Aquagirl
March 7th, 2013
7:30 pm
It was in a video I saw on Utube!
Ok, I’ll admit to a lol on that one….uhhhhhh….youtube!
Actually most plans that don’t pay for them as contraception will give you a waiver, but the process sounds like insurance hell. Imagine trying to get your junk permitted down at Atlanta City Hall and maybe you have an idea.
Bruno
March 7th, 2013
8:18 pm
HD–Here’s a really cool track by Stevie from his 1977 solo album:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBGKgc-mpuI
Bruno
March 7th, 2013
8:26 pm
For the one who will always have my heart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIyX8jrd8jM
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 7th, 2013
8:27 pm
So Aquagirl, is it a requirement of yours to always make general sweeping statements yet can only provide cherry picked examples which don’t support your poutrage?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 7th, 2013
8:29 pm
And I’ve apparently upset MarkV.
Mission accomplished!
Bruno
March 7th, 2013
8:47 pm
Looks like JamVet gave up the ghost here at Kyle’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU_2oNF9CZE
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
8:47 pm
“Based on the way the administration is crafting their policy here about the use of drones, you’ve got to be concerned that something you might say at a Tea Party would be used as an excuse to launched a drone strike against your house.” Bryan Fischer, American Family Association, 3-6-2013.
And you thought that was Santa coming down your chimney.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 7th, 2013
8:50 pm
Curious, your hypothetical lacks one important parameter vs mine.
Constitutional legality.
Bruno
March 7th, 2013
8:51 pm
And for Ringo (josef):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1DWdexSO9M
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 7th, 2013
8:54 pm
Josef is Ringo?
I thought he was Paul.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 7th, 2013
8:56 pm
Or is he the Walrus?
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
9:01 pm
“House Bill 999 mandates teaching abstinence-based sex education in all Mississippi public schools. A school district may decide to teach an “abstinence plus” curriculum — encouraging abstinence while providing information about contraception — but even in those cases, the bill bans demonstration of proper condom use.”
Because there is not nearly enough ignorance in Mississippi.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
9:02 pm
“HB 999 also allows a school to teach that homosexuality is prohibited by a section of the state legal code titled Unnatural Intercourse, which lists ‘crime against nature, with mankind or beast’ as a Class I felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.”
And the band plays “Oh I’m proud to be a republican.”
Bruno
March 7th, 2013
9:20 pm
Let us be lovers, we’ll marry our fortunes together…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W773ZPJhcVw
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
9:40 pm
breckenridge, if you have to rely on schools to teach you about sex, the war has already been lost.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
10:00 pm
And the band plays “Oh I’m proud to be a republican.”
Thanks for letting us all know your sexual preferences lean towards the unnatural, with either beast or mankind. We sure do appreciate this information and are proud of you for your ability to “let it all hang out.” You are groovy. You run with the herd. How awesome! The ringleader tells you it’s OK to do sick things with what ever you can catch and/or wants to do sick things with you, and you’re like, where do I sign up?
Congratulations on outing yourself.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
10:10 pm
Aesop, how does a person’s sexual behavior in the privacy of their own bedroom with another consenting adult affect your life, liberty or property in any way?
Please provide a serious, thoughtful answer rather than your usual knee-jerk one.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
10:13 pm
I do sincerely apologize for not being on board with the whole mano on mano trend, and, unfortunately must report that I never will be on board with it, but I am willing to accept such conduct from others, as long as they consign themselves to a kennel or stall along with all the other animals.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
10:14 pm
tibs – For one, this blog is open to the children. Stifle yourself.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
10:20 pm
Today’s Lesson for Confused Conservatives and/or Rino’s -
God created men and women so that they could reproduce offspring. Notice how well your reproductive system functions for this purpose. Notice how engaging your digestive tract does not function well for this purpose. No new citizens! No future taxpayers! Instead, what we have is a society of degenerates praying upon the productive class. Typical liberal mantra.
Thoughtful enough?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
10:21 pm
pardon me, “preying” upon…
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
10:30 pm
Aesop, I doubt very much that children are reading Kyle’s blog.
Although they are certainly posting on it.
So you equate consensual sex between adults of the same sex to animals. Have any proof? Can animals freely give consent? No, they cannot. So your initial response fails the serious and thoughtful request I made.
Further you didn’t explain how the consensual acts between adult humans affects your life, liberty or property in any way, which is another failure in fulfilling my request.
Your problem is that you will never have a thoughtful answer to my questions, because you have no capability to think beyond your Bible.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
10:38 pm
“Thanks for letting us all know your sexual preferences lean towards the unnatural, with either beast or mankind. We sure do appreciate this information and are proud of you for your ability to “let it all hang out.”
No, actually I’m not gay. But I am an American who believes in the Constitution. And the Constitution forbids legislating religion, in this case filthy fundamentalist religion, or the belief that being gay is a sinful lifestyle. I don’t consider gay people immoral; they are just the way they are because of their genetic makeup, they’re not choosing a lifestyle God finds objective. But to ban gay marriage because the Bible says so? That is a traitorous act.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
10:42 pm
“But to ban gay marriage because the Bible says so? That is a traitorous act.”
Really, breckenridge? Traitorous?
Unconstitutional, yes, but the hyperbole is just as bad from your side when you claim a traitorous act.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
10:45 pm
Aesop it’s also important to recognize a huge trend underway in America, a trend away from Christian fundamentalism in particular and Christianity in general. In 2006 15% of Americans were non-Christians; that number is currently at 21% and will be at 25% when the next presidential election is held. There also been a major trend away from belief in Biblical inerrancy that’s been ongoing for 30 years.
I bring this up simply because we really do need an effective two party political system in this country. But if this idiocy such as the legislators in Mississippi and all over south keeps being put forth the GOP is going to be irrelevant on a national basis. That’s why it is absolutely imperative the party dump the religious agenda and get back to being the party of fiscal conservatism.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
10:52 pm
Tiberius @ 8:29 pm
“And I’ve apparently upset MarkV.”
Tiberius, congratulating himself on his delusion.
Truth teller
March 7th, 2013
10:52 pm
“But to ban gay marriage because the Bible says so? That is a traitorous act.”
We don’t ban gay marriage specifically because of what the Bible only says. We don’t have it more so because for 6,000 years of recorded human history across many cultures and other religions gay marriage was, is, and always will be a no no. Don’t try to pin it all on the bible sir.
And as for your statement that the constitution doesn’t legislate anything regarding religion that is phooey. The constitution makes a clear separation between church and state which is in of itself legislation concerning religion. And the courts regularly decide cases where religion is involved. Just ask the ACLU.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
10:55 pm
“We don’t have it more so because for 6,000 years of recorded human history across many cultures and other religions gay marriage was, is, and always will be a no no.”
So our religion is just as ignorant and bigoted as every other religion?
Is this to be the new standard for legislation?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
10:57 pm
MarkV proving my point once again.
And backing up my contention that children do post on Kyle’s blog.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:04 pm
“And as for your statement that the constitution doesn’t legislate anything regarding religion that is phooey. The constitution makes a clear separation between church and state which is in of itself legislation concerning religion.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about, that makes no sense at all.
The Constitution says two things about religion:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” – 1st Amendment.
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article 6, Paragraph 3.
Now back in early January of 1788 Connecticut held their Constitution ratification convention. On the 2nd day of the gathering a gentleman name William Williams got up and made a very passionate speech in which he said the Constitution MUST be changed to 1) Add a mention of God to the preamble and 2) Alter Article 6, Section 3 to say that only Christians can hold an elected office. After he finished the rest of the delegates basically told him to sit down and shut his stupid mouth. A few days later Connecticut overwhelmingly approved the Constitution.
td
March 7th, 2013
11:06 pm
“But to ban gay marriage because the Bible says so? That is a traitorous act.”
1: The bill of rights protects the government from interfering in religion it does not say the people should not bring their religious beliefs into government.
2: Apart from the bible, there is a valid state interest in protecting the current status of marriage. It is a proven fact that children raised in a traditional setting of marriage between a man and a women turn out to be much more productive normalized citizens. For the government to promote and advocate anything other then this norm is to undermine these goals of society.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:15 pm
Your first point is absolutely correct, td.
It is your second point which doesn’t pass the smell test.
“It is a proven fact that children raised in a traditional setting of marriage between a man and a women turn out to be much more productive normalized citizens.”
I doubt that there are any serious, long-term studies which show this, given the fairly recent novelty of children being raised by gay parents. If you have a cite handy, I’d love to read it.
“For the government to promote and advocate anything other then this norm is to undermine these goals of society.”
No government should promote nor advocate anything, td. That is never a role of government. It should only allow, or not allow.
td
March 7th, 2013
11:26 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:15 pm
“I doubt that there are any serious, long-term studies which show this”
There are not any long term studies that I am aware of either about gay couples raising children. What I was talking about is the long term studies that state that the best relationship to raise a child is in a loving relationship between the two birth parents of the children.
“No government should promote nor advocate anything, td. That is never a role of government. It should only allow, or not allow.”
The state advocates all types of things that they feel are in the best interest of the society as a whole. Examples: Seat belts, smoking. When one study after another states that the best way to raise children is in a two person marriage relationship then it is a valid state interest to promote such a relationship.
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:26 pm
“It is a proven fact that children raised in a traditional setting of marriage between a man and a women turn out to be much more productive normalized citizens.”
The studies I’ve seen say no such thing. They do say that children raised in a stable household with two parents, regardless of sex, are better adjusted. Do they turn out to be more productive?
I’ve not seen that study but it’s certainly possible.
“The bill of rights protects the government from interfering in religion it does not say the people should not bring their religious beliefs into government.”
They are more than welcome to take their religious beliefs to Washington. What they cannot do is attempt to legislate those beliefs.
And furthermore…..suppose we were going to legislate religion in America. Would we legislate a literal interpretation of the Bible? 70% of Americans would be against that because they don’t believe the Bible is word for word true. Yes, I’ll suppose we’ll always be saddled with some scum sucking brain dead religious right maggots such as James Inhofe and Michele Bachmann, but their numbers will dwindle due the huge religious shift underway in America.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 7th, 2013
11:29 pm
Banning “gay marriage” is about as meaningful as banning cows jumping over the moon. So-called “gay marriage” is a physical impossibility because marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:31 pm
“There are not any long term studies that I am aware of either about gay couples raising children. What I was talking about is the long term studies that state that the best relationship to raise a child is in a loving relationship between the two birth parents of the children. ”
So if there are no long-term studies of children raised by gay couples, how can any long-term study of children raised with traditional parents show a more favorable outcome? What can you compare to if you have no comparison?
“The state advocates all types of things that they feel are in the best interest of the society as a whole. Examples: Seat belts, smoking. ”
Correct, but that doesn’t mean they SHOULD advocate, which is my point.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:32 pm
“And furthermore…..suppose we were going to legislate religion in America.”
A hypothetical which will never happen, breckenridge. The Constitution won’t allow it.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:33 pm
“So-called “gay marriage” is a physical impossibility because marriage can only be between a man and a woman.”
Why?
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:40 pm
“So-called “gay marriage” is a physical impossibility because marriage can only be between a man and a woman.”
Why can a marriage only be between a man and a woman?
td
March 7th, 2013
11:41 pm
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:26 pm
“They are more than welcome to take their religious beliefs to Washington. What they cannot do is attempt to legislate those beliefs.”
What is the world do you think any legislature does when they write a law? They bring their own set of mores and beliefs with them in formulating a law be it Christian, Muslim or secular humanist. For one to say that religious beliefs have no place in the law is just plain crazy or they are promoting secular humanism?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:48 pm
Gets awful quiet on here when you ask the “Why” question, doesn’t it?
td
March 7th, 2013
11:48 pm
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:40 pm
“So-called “gay marriage” is a physical impossibility because marriage can only be between a man and a woman.”
Why can a marriage only be between a man and a woman?
Personally, I think marriage is a states issue and should be decided on a state by state basis like it has been for years. It has nothing to do with Constitutionally protected rights but instead is right the state can make on the basis of the mores and values of the individual state. We already have states that have set the standards differently in marriage. For example; the degree in relationship standard and age standard. If a state believes a gay couple should be allowed to marry then so be it for that state.
What is the valid state interest to allow a gay couple to marry?
td
March 7th, 2013
11:50 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:48 pm
Gets awful quiet on here when you ask the “Why” question, doesn’t it?
I will ask you then why is there a valid state interest in allowing gay people to marry?
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:54 pm
“For one to say that religious beliefs have no place in the law is just plain crazy or they are promoting secular humanism?”
Well when they go to Washington the first thing members of Congress do is take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Their first responsibility it to the Constitution and not the Bible or the Koran or any other instrument of religious instruction or any particular religious beliefs. Ultimately you can only serve one master and they are there to serve the Constitution.
Members of Congress are certainly not instructed to ditch their religious beliefs but rather make them secondary to the law of the land, which is the Constitution. In other words they should carefully consider if a piece of legislation they are going to propose is an effort to legislate their particular beliefs. If it is then they should tear it up and throw it in the trash.
Got it?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:56 pm
“I will ask you then why is there a valid state interest in allowing gay people to marry?”
I will return a question to you as my answer.
Since when does the state’s interests trump the interests of the individual?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”
In the big scheme of things, the individual is at the top of the food chain when it comes to “interests”, td.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:58 pm
“It has nothing to do with Constitutionally protected rights but instead is right the state can make on the basis of the mores and values of the individual state.”
Equal treatment under the law is not a Constitutionally protected right?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:00 am
“If a state believes a gay couple should be allowed to marry then so be it for that state. ”
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:13 am
Looking forward to reading your responses tomorrow, td (if not necessarily some others), but it’s been a long day with an early wake up this morning due to parental health issues.
Catch you in the A.M.
Buzzy
March 8th, 2013
12:38 am
Yawn. Where were the Republicans when George Bush was running the country into the ground and we spent 86B every six months on Iraq?
The Republicans have no constructive plan. They just want to draw a government salary and foul the works up as long as they can.
ODD OWL
March 8th, 2013
1:20 am
Not one dime of the Republican massive $11 trillion + $2 trillion interest = $13 trillion debt went into my pocket or the pockets of any other non rich American… The Republican ran up the debt by cutting taxes on rich people, two unfunded wars to feed the military industrial complex and a prescription drug plan on the credit card, so why would i care about Republican debt ??? Share the wealth, tax the rich, pay down the debt…
HDB
March 8th, 2013
7:39 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
5:05 pm
“I see HDB is playing this game with words now in order to justify his rewriting of the dictionary:”
1) I didn’t write the definitions in the dictionary; I just brought forth the meanings! I can’t help it if promote and provide are synonymous! Blame the wordsmith, not me!!
2) I did not state that liberals and libertarians were the same; in fact, I showed the difference and brought forth a source that showed that modern liberalism is the upgrade to Jefferson and Locke…and also showed that limited government was designed to REGULATE business via the Constitution….and that’s how the Framers intended it! Libertarians prefer a pseudo-anarchistic system where there are NO rules…. personally and/or professionally.
3) FY2009 has been shown to be the final FISCAL year of the Bush Presidency, not the beginning of the the Obama Presidency….but those who are in denial persist in remaining so….
Wise man said…”don’t hate the player…hate the game!”
Sailfish
March 8th, 2013
8:04 am
odd owl
Well said!
Georgia
March 8th, 2013
8:17 am
They shoot lions, don’t they?
indigo
March 8th, 2013
8:35 am
Georgia – 8:17
If this new gun bill passes the Senate, they will be shooting more people, too.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 8th, 2013
8:40 am
HDB, you need to better educate yourself about libertarians and find a better source for comparison ..
And to deny that the chief executive could not have affected changes in spending for nine months after taking office continues to deny reality.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 8th, 2013
8:42 am
Have you ever noticed that ODD OWL’s posts start after the bars close down?
@@
March 8th, 2013
8:49 am
Aaaaaabout-FACE!!!!!
President Barack Obama prides himself on rejecting donations from registered lobbyists, but a newly released list of campaign fundraisers is peppered with leaders from companies and law firms that lobby the federal government.
schnirt
Finn McCool
March 8th, 2013
8:54 am
James O’Keefe Settles With Ex-ACORN Employee Juan Carlos Vera, Agrees To Pay $100,000
hehehehehe
Finn McCool
March 8th, 2013
8:56 am
And to deny that the chief executive could not have affected changes in spending for nine months
Yeah, if you can’t turn a battleship on a dime then you aren’t worth a dang.
JDW
March 8th, 2013
8:57 am
@Tiberius…”And to deny that the chief executive could not have affected changes in spending for nine months after taking office continues to deny reality.”
To suggest that he should have dismantled a budget and appropriations already in place, during the worst Recession since the 1930’s is completely delusional…but then I expect no more from you…it is a prime example of the thinking by today’s “Conservatives” that if left unchecked will render them a non-factor.
bluecoat
March 8th, 2013
9:02 am
If you do not like Sundays sermon,pull your gun and shoot the preacher.Just remember he could be packing.Woke this am to find I was in as good of fiscal shape as before the recession.More BS..
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
9:02 am
Yep, typical lib responses, since the world revolves around them, we have to do studies to make sure that children with two deviants as parents aren’t harmed by it. Same people that study global warming and, of course, they are good with the two deviant household arrangement. Also, since church attendance is down, which is good in a way because that means we haven’t had anymore 9/11’s, it also means that no one is watching, so we should just boot morality to the curb and have at it. And finally, if you can’t see two defectives bunched up upon eachother, what harm is it to you?
Yes, the perfect prepackaged lib family, two deviants and an adopted child. Which is about as far from reality as you can get, as usual.
Rafe Hollister
March 8th, 2013
9:04 am
The Dems just keep on claiming that 2009 spending is to be attributed to GWB. It is a lie, in that Obama signed many of the bills, crawfished on his pledge to veto bills with ear marks in them, and encouraged all the spending he could, as he said we needed it to stimulate the economy. They repeat that lie here everyday and use left wing websites to back their claim.
As Rush Limbaugh says the only way to fight liberal absurdity is with absurdity. So, if that is the way we play the game, then get on board with Bush giving us a “surplus” in 2001. A real budget hawk, he really trimmed the budget and gave us a surplus.—-
The Treasury Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30,(2001) of $127 billion, compared with $237 billion a year ago.
When is Obama going to give us a surplus?
From a left wing website.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/29/economy/budget/
td
March 8th, 2013
9:05 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:58 pm
“It has nothing to do with Constitutionally protected rights but instead is right the state can make on the basis of the mores and values of the individual state.”
Equal treatment under the law is not a Constitutionally protected right?
This would be a true statement if you believe there is a Constitutional right of marriage. I fail to see that protected right in the Constitution.
Rafe Hollister
March 8th, 2013
9:09 am
The last surplus in our national budget was delivered by GW Bush! Yet, he was considered a big spender prior to the anointment of the Emperor.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:11 am
“Yeah, if you can’t turn a battleship on a dime then you aren’t worth a dang.”
If you don’t even TRY to turn the battleship, you still need to take responsibility when it runs aground.
Keep flailing, Finn.
And JDW, once again, you may agree with his policy decision all you want, but if you are using it solely to deny his responsibility for the spending he had the authority to slow, then that is two separate issues.
Which I have pointed out all along.
He made a choice. You consider it a right one, while I disagree with his choice.
The problem is that you want to absolve him of each and every responsibility for the negatives of his administration (as do the rest of President Incompetent’s sycophants), while I am rightly claiming that his choice had the consequence of assigning responsibility for his actions, and that includes taking responsibility for a portion of the spending of FY 2009.
Which is something you can’t conceive of – assigning blame to this incompetent.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:15 am
“This would be a true statement if you believe there is a Constitutional right of marriage. I fail to see that protected right in the Constitution.”
Oh, td. I expected better of you.
There is no protected right to allow blacks to ride on the same bus as white people, but it is covered under equal protection. There is no enumerated right for blacks to use the same drinking fountain, or attend the same schools as white people, but it is covered under Constitutionally-approved laws passed by Congress and changes to our Constitution.
Equal protection is equal protection, td.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:22 am
Rafe, I see where you’re going on this, but two things come to mind:
First, there really was no budget surplus. It was smoke and mirrors accounting gimmicks that both Congress and the President used for political capital.
Two, to use my continuing analogy of President Incompetent being able to (correctly) affect spending during his first 9 months in office (and therefore be responsible for it), Bush would have had to have changed expected spending during his first 9 months, which I do not believe he did. He could rightly take credit that he didn’t diminish the (phony) surplus he had been left, but of course he never campaigned on cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term as this Incompetent loudly did.
td
March 8th, 2013
9:24 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:00 am
“If a state believes a gay couple should be allowed to marry then so be it for that state. ”
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:25 am
And Aesop, thanks for providing the expected “I got nothing but what the Bible tells me” response.
Greatly lacking in the thoughtful and serious category, but expected.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:29 am
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
“Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.”
And if that couple has benefits from the same company based on their marriage, they now lose them because they’re in a different state? Any children they might be raising are no longer part of their family? The CHILDREN get booted off the benefits because they are no longer considered part of a family? Income taxes at the Federal level? On and on and on . . . .
All for something that should already be considered Constitutionally protected in the first place?
@@
March 8th, 2013
9:33 am
As long as there are surrogates and sperm banks, gay couples will, at the very least, be able to procure children.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:33 am
“Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.”
Based on your analogy you much be are ok with those individuals getting married again in the new state. You know like having to get a new license within 30 days or whatever the length of time is when one moves to any given state.
Seems pretty stupid to have to get married again, but glad you are on board with equal protection as Tiberius has already explained to you.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:35 am
*must be
td
March 8th, 2013
9:41 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:15 am
“This would be a true statement if you believe there is a Constitutional right of marriage. I fail to see that protected right in the Constitution.”
Oh, td. I expected better of you.
There is no protected right to allow blacks to ride on the same bus as white people, but it is covered under equal protection. There is no enumerated right for blacks to use the same drinking fountain, or attend the same schools as white people, but it is covered under Constitutionally-approved laws passed by Congress and changes to our Constitution.
Equal protection is equal protection, td.
If I am not mistaken then the issue you are talking about with African Americans is covered under the 15th and 16th Amendments as the SCOTUS has upheld on many occasions. There is no such law passed by the Congress to even have a equal protection claim for marriage. I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.
Like I said last night. States have all types of restrictions on marriage like age requirements and degrees of relationship. Marriage is not an individual right but it is a states right and states decide.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:46 am
“I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.”
It certainly is and to an extent that is why the Supremes are going to decided if states can in fact have laws against gay marriage.
Why don’t you just say that you have issues with gay marriage based on religious / faith basis? Whether I agree or not, it seems to be a much more respectable stance than coming up with a zillion “legal” veils to hide behind.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:47 am
“I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.”
Which will be going to SCOTUS and will likely be thrown out as unconstitutional. However, the equal protection clause in the in the Constitution, which means that protection already exists, an can only be changed via another amendment – not by a law which restricts it – which is why I believe that DOMA will be struck down.
And your age requirement fails completely, td. Age has nothing to do with equal protection, but everything to do with informed consent for adults.
td
March 8th, 2013
9:49 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:29 am
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
“Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.”
“And if that couple has benefits from the same company based on their marriage, they now lose them because they’re in a different state?”
That sounds like a company problem and not a state problems because companies can offer benefits to domestic partners if they choose.
” Any children they might be raising are no longer part of their family? ”
How are children born out of wedlock today recognized?
“The CHILDREN get booted off the benefits because they are no longer considered part of a family? ”
How are children now born out of wedlock able to receive those benefits?
“All for something that should already be considered Constitutionally protected in the first place?”
IYHO my friend.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
9:52 am
Bigots will be bigots.
Yesterday it was race or sex.
Today it is sexual preference.
They will always find a group that is different and attempt to exclude them.
Its what they do.
td
March 8th, 2013
9:55 am
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:46 am
“I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.”
It certainly is and to an extent that is why the Supremes are going to decided if states can in fact have laws against gay marriage.
Why don’t you just say that you have issues with gay marriage based on religious / faith basis? Whether I agree or not, it seems to be a much more respectable stance than coming up with a zillion “legal” veils to hide behind.
I am laying out not a religious argument because that one is to easy for you progressives to just ignore or attribute to just another “eight wing zealot” point. Instead I am laying out the Federalism argument and a Constitutional argument that the Federal government does not have unlimited powers to make up stuff as they wish. This way you progressives will actually have to make an intelligent argument based on law.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:59 am
“That sounds like a company problem and not a state problems because companies can offer benefits to domestic partners if they choose. ”
And you’re going to require a company to change their benefits policies because a “spouse” is no longer a “spouse”?
As to the children, whose children are they? Which was born of whom? It matters as to coverage, especially if the child is born of a spouse who isn’t the employee (you know, the one no longer covered?).
Look, I get your “states rights” argument. I believe that issues like abortion are valid topics for a states right discussion because it is a much more narrowly defined issue.
But there is either equal, or not equal. There is no in between. When it comes to someone else’s actions which have no bearing on your life, liberty or property there is no valid reason to fight against equal treatment under the law.
sailfish
March 8th, 2013
10:00 am
I love the fact that americans have the attention span of a knat. Flash back to september 08 and the economic world was literally crumbling around us. Who was president and what did he have to say about it? The next 8 months close to a million jobs a month were being shredded. Blaming obama for that is a fools choice, plus be honest all you conned, the cost of two wars was never really debated, just rubber stamped. The worst of the worst that still affects our economy to this day was the housing bust. Yes, those were great times when people were using their houses as their personal atm’s but the bubble did burst and now all many people are left with is enormous debt. There is still another two or three years before that concludes and housing can once again get back to treading water.
As much as many of you name callers want to blame obama, no matter who followed the bush disaster was doomed. OK, so you hated the stimulus but at least it was made in america and money funnelled to states and american citizens, without it, unemployment would be much higher today – fact! Kind of funny when people scream solyndra and waste of 500 million when auditors are finding BILLIONS of waste in rebuilding iraq. The debt is a real problem but unemployment is more urgent. The houses of reps priorites are backward just like so much of the failed conned ideology, they are the problem.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
10:01 am
td
Problem is that your argument is really just your religious beliefs veiled under your interpretation of the Constitution.
As I stated, I could respect your stance more if you just came out and said it is based on your faith. Hiding it is shallow. No offense, but it is.
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2013
10:01 am
If I am not mistaken then the issue you are talking about with African Americans is covered under the 15th and 16th Amendments
You are mistaken, the 16th Amendment is about income tax.
African-Americans can claim the right to ride buses or attend public schools under the due process clause (Fifth) and the section of the 14th that says
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Notice there is nothing in there about former slaves or type of citizen, I believe it’s cited in court cases to overturn DOMA.
We can restrict classes of people from either unexpressed (bus riding) or expressed (voting) rights if there is a compelling interest, no right is guaranteed under all circumstances. The problem with denying gays marriage is the anti folks are unable to show that compelling interest. “I don’t like it” is not a compelling interest to deny equal protection under the law.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:02 am
“Instead I am laying out the Federalism argument and a Constitutional argument that the Federal government does not have unlimited powers to make up stuff as they wish.”
Like a law assigning Federal power to regulate marriages?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:02 am
And muck up all the legal ramifications of marriage in each individual state by doing so?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:05 am
“OK, so you hated the stimulus but at least it was made in america and money funnelled to states and american citizens, without it, unemployment would be much higher today – fact!”
Actually, that is supposition, sailfish. Once a particular path is taken you will never know what an alternative path might have done.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
10:06 am
td
And stop being so weak with your “progressive” term that you think is some witty put down.
There are “progressives” who are not for gay marriage and there are conservatives and libertarians who are for allowing it. I know it made you feel good to throw out your usual broad brush, but on this issue it transcends party and ideological philosophies.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:08 am
Politico, I do not believe that td is relying on a faith-based disagreement with gay marriage at all. There may be some part of it, but not knowing him/her personally I can’t tell.
Neither can you.
td’s argument about states rights can be a valid one for certain issues, and a Constitutional argument can be made in many cases for an anti-Federal solution to many problems, but as I have stated already, equality isn’t one of them.
sailfish
March 8th, 2013
10:08 am
“Actually, that is supposition, sailfish. Once a particular path is taken you will never know what an alternative path might have done.”
Fine, that’s a good point but just go back and see Hoover, he did nothing and what was the result of that inaction?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
10:09 am
tibs – Yes, I’ll side up with the bible and you can side up with the animals.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
10:12 am
Tiberius
Maybe not, but I can go by previous posts on this same issue he has made on other AJC blogs which were of a religious based nature.
Maybe he has switched his thought process on it, but I’m skeptical at best.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:13 am
“Fine, that’s a good point but just go back and see Hoover, he did nothing and what was the result of that inaction?”
Nope. Not going to play the “two different situations” game, sailfish. Each and every situation is different, and each and every economic collapse has different underlying causes.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:15 am
Aesop, when was the last time an animal consented to something you wanted to do to (or with) it?
I rest my case.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
10:17 am
tibs – Yes, I’ll side up with the bible and you can side up with the animals.
Fail
NoBodyYouKnow
March 8th, 2013
10:17 am
I know td. I wish I was as informed and as well educated as you. KISS MY AZZ!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
10:23 am
Aesop,
Do you believe that the Bible is word for word 100 percent accurate ?
Im just curious.
Its ok if you do 1 in 3 Americans feel that way. Although that number is declining.
Bud Wiser
March 8th, 2013
10:23 am
Several private individuals have already offered to pick up the tab to reopen the White House tours, but the White House has done nothing towards accepting anything. It is their continual stubborness on all fronts to “blame the sequester on the Republicans”.
It would be a magnanimous and politically wise gesture from Obama to pick it up personally from the funds accumulated by all the money he has collected for the “$5000 dinner with the stars”, but again, the White House has done nothing.
I suppose he needs more tax hikes to pay for it.
HDB
March 8th, 2013
10:26 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:02 am
Marriage is covered under the contract provisions of the Constitution in that contracts recognized in one state are recognized in all 50 states; also, by treaty with nations that we recognize (and vice versa), marriage in one nation is recognized and reciprocated by the other……
Gay marriage, therefore, is de facto LEGAL in the US………………..
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
10:28 am
Several private individuals have already offered to pick up the tab to reopen the White House tours, but the White House has done nothing towards accepting anything.
And they shouldnt.
I googled using that and didnt find anything.
White house tours private money
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:29 am
Bud Wiser, I saw something yesterday on the White House tour costs. Seems it might be as “high” as $215k per year for the extra uniformed Secret Service officers tasked to guard visitors (as the tours are given by volunteers).
And are these uniformed officers really going to see a pink slip?
This is just another sign of incompetence from the Chief Incompetent. Let’s screw with the kids and their parents to make these cuts seem so artificially draconian . . . .
Pathetic.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:33 am
HDB, why are you telling me about gay marriage? (However, DOMA and the Congress would disagree with you and I on your statement)
tell td and Aesop. (and others)
JDW
March 8th, 2013
10:38 am
@Rafe…”The Treasury Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30,(2001) of $127 billion, compared with $237 billion a year ago.”
2001 was Clinton’s budget…Duhbya owned 2002-2009, the period in time where we went from that $127 billion surplus to a $1.4 trillion deficit, give or take $200 billion…but do blather on.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
10:40 am
Do you believe that the Bible is word for word 100 percent accurate ?
cheesy – An even better question, how come obozo starts going to churchand the media makes a big deal out of it, a week or two before election day?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:41 am
“An even better question, how come obozo starts going to churchand the media makes a big deal out of it, a week or two before election day?”
Deflection.
Bud Wiser
March 8th, 2013
10:43 am
Grits, Eric Bolling and Bill O’Reilly have already publicly made the offer with their own money. Obama is more interested in the perception of grief and anguish from the children and other visitors caused by “sequestration” tha a resolution to the problem.
You must not catch the news so well, as I am sure that pmsnbc is your main source.
His “sequestration” is becoming a publicity “castration” for his precious image.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
10:47 am
cheesy – An even better question, how come obozo starts going to churchand the media makes a big deal out of it, a week or two before election day?
Nonsense.
By your non answer Ill assume you do.
@@
March 8th, 2013
10:47 am
When liberals are looking for an ongoing debate to avoid others of a more important nature, they’ll go with religion and/or global warming.
A tactical ploy.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
10:49 am
You must not catch the news so well, as I am sure that pmsnbc is your main source.
I just stay away from the Fox News bubble. Nothing but nonsense there anyway.
Sort of like the last election.
Fox News was way way off just like they are everyday.
Difference is that day somebody was keeping score.
New York Times and Nate Silver had it exactly right.
Bill Orielly is a well documented liar so that has to be taken with a grain fo salt as well.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
10:50 am
And now we start another cycle -
A “Sex Weekend” workshop at Yale University Saturday apparently encouraged an open discussion of incest, bestiality, prostitution, and consensual pain during intercourse.
Event director Giuliana Berry ’14 told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday that the workshop was brought to campus to teach students not to automatically judge people who may have engaged in these sorts of activities, but rather to respond with “understanding” and “compassion.”
Now we can keep an look out for the lib study that proclaims that bestiality is “hereditary,” and then listen for those who claim bestiality as a civil right, moron bloggers will soon announce that just because bestiality is an abomination in the eye of the Lord that so is adultery, and of course, adopted children do just fine in a family with one human and one animal parent.
Despite the fact that many of these children kill themselves because of the shame they endure.
But be proud, animal lovers. It’s all about YOU!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
10:53 am
bill o’reilly pay for white house tours
Google search produces nothing saying he would pay for the tours.
Honestly it doesnt matter. Bill is just a modern day Lonesome Rhodes.
A populist blowhard. Busy selling books and Christmas ornaments to those dim enough to buy into this crap.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
10:54 am
Despite the fact that many of these children kill themselves because of the shame they endure.
But be proud, animal lovers. It’s all about YOU!
The crazy is coming out.
Proceed Aesop by all means proceed.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
10:55 am
cheezit – Let’s just for fun say that I do. What mindless point could you possibly want to make?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
10:57 am
During a presentation on research conducted by George A. Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, the presenters noted that “boys and girls adopted by lesbian and homosexual couples show a greater level of stress than that which is already generated by their status as orphans or children abandoned by their biological parents.” They added that this situation “produces diverse trauma and behavioral disorders that can even lead to suicidal tendencies or attempts.”
“According to various studies containing testimonies from children of homosexual parents, most them of admit to suffering strong emotions, such as fear, anxiety, apprehension, shame and anger in trying to hide from their friends and relatives the homosexuality of their father or mother,” they continued.
It’s all about YOU!
JDW
March 8th, 2013
10:58 am
@Tiberius…”And JDW, once again, you may agree with his policy decision all you want, but if you are using it solely to deny his responsibility for the spending he had the authority to slow, then that is two separate issues.”
As you know, or should know being the self appointed Constitutional Authority the President has no authority to change appropriations that have already been passed. Nixon tried the trick of not spending the money and got slapped down quick by The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, so don’t even go there.
His or one day Her responsibility under the current rules, specifically not the Constitution, is to submit a proposed budget and either sign or veto the resulting agreements. As a point of fact the resulting budget almost NEVER varies, in total spending, from that original submission and of course the President may use the office to support or oppose one course of action or another. For 2009 that process happened in 2008 while Obama was campaigning.
In the case of 2009 Congress gave Duhbya almost to the penny EXACTLY what he asked for and Obama inherited that state of affairs. The only spending in that FY that can be attributed to Obama is between $140 billion (per CATO) and $203 billion (per FactCheck). That simply means that the policies of Duhbya resulted in raising the deficit to about $1.2 trillion, where it has remained.
Your duplicity is staggering…in your mind it was, apparently Obama’s fault Duhbya’s budget was executed and the fault of the Democrats in Congress that Duhbya and a Republican Congress turned the aforementioned surplus into a $1.4 trillion deficit through tax cuts, unfunded wars, other unfunded programs and the trashing of the economy .
HDB
March 8th, 2013
11:01 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:33 am
Tibbi…I was following-up on your point and providing you additional info in support of your position……that’s all! Should that be a problem????
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
11:02 am
cheezit – Let’s just for fun say that I do. What mindless point could you possibly want to make?
Absolutely nothing.
As I said 1 in 3 Americans belive the bible word for word.
It just lets me know the point of view you are coming from.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
11:03 am
George A. Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, the presenters noted that “boys and girls adopted by lesbian and homosexual couples show a greater level of stress than that which is already generated by their status as orphans or children abandoned by their biological parents.”
This has been de bunked over and over.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
11:08 am
This has been de bunked over and over.
cheezy – You libs don’t care about decency, you don’t care about morality, you don’t care about responsibility and most of all, you don’t have any use for honesty.
Save it for a fellow heathen, kay?
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2013
11:11 am
LOL, citing Rent-A-Boy Rekers does wonders for Aesop’s case. What a google faceplant.
billy ray
March 8th, 2013
11:15 am
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories Go lie down and take your meds and play with your crayolas- kay?
Politico
March 8th, 2013
11:17 am
Aquagirl
That is almost as good as when he said Larry Craig was a liberal but had to run as a Republican. When shown his voting record which was a 96% grade from a conservative organization and the accolades from social conservative groups, it was everyone’s reading comprehension that was the problem. Not his stupidity in stating that Craig was a liberal.
JDW
March 8th, 2013
11:22 am
@Aesop…more fables I see…you know there are actually people that study this sort of thing…
From Princeton and the Brookings Institute…
“Summarizing the research, the American Psychological Association concluded in its July 2004 “Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children,”
There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. . . . On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. . . . Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.”
billy ray
March 8th, 2013
11:23 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:41 am
“An even better question, how come obozo starts going to churchand the media makes a big deal out of it, a week or two before election day?”
Deflection.
BINGO!!!!
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
11:23 am
OK, I’ll open the floor to the liberals to lecture us on morality and responsibility.
This should be fun.
@@
March 8th, 2013
11:25 am
There are studies…and then there are more studies.
Kudos to those gay parents, like those of Zach Wahls, who have done a remarkable job in raising their now young-adult children. I’m sure the challenges were significant and the social support often modest. There are cases in the data of people like Zach, but not very many. Stability is pivotal, but uncommon.
but…
To improve upon the science and to test the theory of “no differences,” the NFSS collected data from a large, random cross-section of American young adults—apart from the census, the largest population-based dataset prepared to answer research questions about households in which mothers or fathers have had same-sex relationships—and asked them questions about their life both now and while they were growing up. When simply and briefly asked if their mother and/or father had been in a same-sex romantic relationship, 175 said it was true of their mothers and 73 said the same about their fathers—numbers far larger than has typified studies in this area. We interviewed all of these respondents (and a random sample of others) about their own lives and relationships, as well as asked them to reflect upon their family life while growing up. The differences, it turns out, were numerous. For instance, 28 percent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed, compared to 8 percent of those from married mom-and-dad families. Forty percent of the former admit to having had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to 13 percent of the latter. Nineteen percent of the former said they were currently or recently in psychotherapy for problems connected with anxiety, depression, or relationships, compared with 8 percent of the latter. And those are just three of the 25 differences I noted.
@@
March 8th, 2013
11:26 am
Oops!
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.single.html
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
11:28 am
On the other hand, it may suggest that the household instability that the NFSS reveals is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital to esteem and support this new (but tiny) family form while Americans continue to flee the stable, two-parent biological married model, the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid. – Slate, June 11, 2012, at 6:02 AM
It’s all about YOU!
breckenridge
March 8th, 2013
11:28 am
I see the Georgia House passed legislation yesterday that will allow people to carry guns to church. I like that! That way when the preacher starts droning on and on, boring the entire congregation with crap nobody cares about, just fire a few rounds over his head to get things moving again.
billy ray
March 8th, 2013
11:31 am
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories You are a repuke- you have no idea of what morality means unless it lines your pockets or it satisfies some misguided nonsense that you are the only one with the correct answer and the only one that is patriotic and that it is somehow your mission in life to use your master of the universe personna to save that wee small part of the world that you do not want to blow up or invade.
Bruno
March 8th, 2013
11:33 am
Looks like Karma can be a b!tch sometimes:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/ex-congresswoman-faces-possible-disbarment/nWkfL/
I can’t think of a more deserving candidate for disbarment than Denise Majette.
Matz
March 8th, 2013
11:39 am
Bruno @ 11:33,
On this we agree.
breckenridge
March 8th, 2013
11:40 am
But notice the roaring silence coming out of Washington republicans as the Supreme Court considers two gay marriage cases. Even the usual suspects – Bachmann, Inhofe, Smith from New Jersey – have been completely silent. In fact all we’ve heard is that a handful of republicans sent a letter to the Supreme Court expressing support for gay marriage.
Why no GOP outrage? I think republicans have realized that gay marriage is a total loser of an issue for them. They’ve looked at the numbers and seen how rapidly national opinion has swung on this issue and realize there is nothing to be gained from trashing gays in Santorum-like style.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
11:44 am
“Authority the President has no authority to change appropriations that have already been passed.”
Two words, JDW:
Bull sheet.
If he did not have the authority, the Congress wouldn’t have found the need to pass the follow-on act, moron!
“Your duplicity is staggering”
As is your galactic-sized stupidity. JDW
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
11:46 am
“George A. Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, the presenters noted that “boys and girls adopted by lesbian and homosexual couples show a greater level of stress than that which is already generated by their status as orphans or children abandoned by their biological parents.” ”
Even if it is true (and I’m not sure that it is), do you blame them for having more stress when ignorant blowhards like Aesop and LBB go around degrading their parents in public as animals?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
11:49 am
“OK, I’ll open the floor to the liberals to lecture us on morality and responsibility.”
Wondering when you’ll realize it isn’t the government’s role to legislate morality when it comes to the actions of consenting adults, Aesop.
hryder
March 8th, 2013
11:51 am
DO NOT ELECT ANY INCUMBENT ELECTED FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDERS SHOULD THEY SEEK TO REMAIN IN THAT POSITION!!! Then immediately pass term limitations, repeal Obama care, no Congressional retirement benefites, no special health insurance, balanced budget except in time of war, and impeach Obama if still in office and find him guilty of lying in public statements and ineptness in carrying out the mandated duties of office with a demonstrasted lack of fiscally sound ecomomic practices and policies.
Bruno
March 8th, 2013
11:51 am
Bruno @ 11:33,
On this we agree.
Matz–Did she beat you out of money also??
A little fun for you on this glorious Friday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5A12o3vqOs
Too bad I have to work all weekend
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
11:55 am
“The only spending in that FY that can be attributed to Obama is between $140 billion (per CATO) and $203 billion (per FactCheck). That simply means that the policies of Duhbya resulted in raising the deficit to about $1.2 trillion, where it has remained. ”
For what President Incompetent spent, JDW, NOT what he failed to spend. You would think that someone who promised to fix the economy and cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term would try to actually do both. Little did you know (even if half the country did know) that he couldn’t do either one.
Once again, you continue to rely solely on lies, damned lies and statistics without the background context. The all-too-typical shallow lack of thinking usually provided by you and the rest of President Incompetent’s sycophants.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
11:57 am
Hyperbolic nonsense alert at 11:51!
Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)
March 8th, 2013
11:58 am
Yeah, that $8 billion in wasted money to rebuild Iraq sure would be useful about now….
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:01 pm
As would all that money wasted on green energy companies, Finn.
Too bad we’ll never read that coming from your keyboard.
Waste is waste, no matter who gives the tax money away.
breckenridge
March 8th, 2013
12:09 pm
“Yeah, that $8 billion in wasted money to rebuild Iraq sure would be useful about now….”
It far exceeds $8 billion. The total cost to date of the Iraq war is somewhere in the $2 trillion range, the final cost won’t be clear until all the costs of treating soldiers with bodily injuries and PTSD play out. And I still can’t figure out what the mission was there. I mean it was an evolving thing. First we going to get rid of Saddam, then we were going to export democracy, then it changed to country building……..it would seem to me it’s much better to define a clear objective at the beginning of a conflict.
Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)
March 8th, 2013
12:09 pm
Waste is waste, no matter who gives the tax money away
No it’s not. One is meant to try something for americans, the other is meant to try something for Iraqi’s.
Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)
March 8th, 2013
12:10 pm
it’s much better to define a clear objective at the beginning of a conflict.
Which is why we don’t let republicans have the reigns any longer.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:12 pm
“No it’s not. One is meant to try something for americans, the other is meant to try something for Iraqi’s.”
Nice try at deflection, Finn, but unfortunately, when you (wrongly) invade another sovereign nation, you’re required to clean up your mess.
But cleaning up the messes you make isn’t in the liberal playbook, is it?
JDW
March 8th, 2013
12:17 pm
@Tiberius…”If he did not have the authority, the Congress wouldn’t have found the need to pass the follow-on act, moron!”
DUHHHH…he had it in 1974…not in 2009…bit time challenged are we now?
“As is your galactic-sized stupidity. JDW”
I do know what year it is…
HDB
March 8th, 2013
12:18 pm
hryder
March 8th, 2013
11:51 am
The problem with you attitude is multiple:
1) There are already term limits in federal offices; for Congress, it’s an ELECTION!! If you don’t like the incumbent, vote for his/her opponent!
2) The Supreme Court has held the Affordable Care Act as constitutional….and as a result, health care costs have DECLINED 4% annually. Granted, there will be some tweaks needed…but it is working!
3) As a government employee, Congress has the right to access the federal retirement system; if you had said that they should be VESTED like other federal employees (i.e., five years) before being able to access retirement, then the issue would be how long would the vesting period be for Congress (3 Congressional terms = 1 Senatorial term)…..
4) A balanced budget amendment would limit the flexibility of the federal government to react to situations in the nation whose scope is larger than any other entity in the US could handle….save the federal government…..like natural disasters, economic downturns……
5) The Constitution has a strict set of rules to cover the impeachment of the President (”high crimes and misdemeanors”); since you wish Obama indicted for your desired charges, would you agree to similar charges filed against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for getting the nation into two wars on false pretenses, lying in public statements, ineptness in carrying out the mandated duties of office with a demonstrated lack of fiscally sound economic practices and policies??
Goes both ways……….
Rafe Hollister
March 8th, 2013
12:21 pm
JDW and Tiberius
Yes, I know to claim Bush had a “surplus” is absurd, just like claiming Obama had nothing to do with the spending and Stimulus added to the budget in 2009, and absurd like saying we had a “surplus”, smoke and mirrors as it was. Note I put surplus in quotes, as it was for the most part an accounting trick.
If you are going to maintain that Obama did not major influence on spending in 2009, I am going to maintain that Bush had a surplus in the budget on 30 Sep 2001, after he had been in office for 9 of the 12 months. He could have spent all that surplus, had he not been “thrifty”, hah!!!
southpaw
March 8th, 2013
12:22 pm
New thread upstairs
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:24 pm
“DUHHHH…he had it in 1974…not in 2009…bit time challenged are we now?”
Just as he has it NOW, JDW.
A bit Constitutionally-challenged, are we now? (What am I saying – that’s a given with you)
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:25 pm
“The Supreme Court has held the Affordable Care Act as constitutional….and as a result, health care costs have DECLINED 4% annually.”
Absolutely, 100% false, HDB.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 8th, 2013
12:26 pm
Tib: Even if it is true (and I’m not sure that it is), do you blame them for having more stress when ignorant blowhards like…LBB go around degrading their parents in public as animals?
———
Link please.
Rafe Hollister
March 8th, 2013
12:35 pm
brenkenridge
You and Finn act like if we hadn’t gone in and removed Saddam, that we would have saved all this money. You can’t make that statement, because you can never predict, what he would have done next. We have to assume he sat there and continued to defy UN resolutions and we would be flying sorties indefinitely to enforce the no fly zones. No one else was going to do it, so how much would “containment” cost? Would be still enforcing the no fly zone, today? Saddam was convinced that we were all talk and no action, so what makes you think he would have changed or been removed internally?
If you are not going to enforce the UN resolutions, why have the UN, which is probably a good idea anyway. Just think how much we could save if we withdrew from that collection of despots and dictators and anti-American schmucks.
breckenridge
March 8th, 2013
1:03 pm
“You and Finn act like if we hadn’t gone in and removed Saddam, that we would have saved all this money.”
You obviously have me confused with somebody else. I simply stated what the Iraq war has cost and the fact that the objective was a moving target. I said nothing about saving money. Do not try to put words in my mouth.
Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)
March 8th, 2013
1:10 pm
The total cost to date of the Iraq war is somewhere in the $2 trillion range
If 41 had only told 43 that he loved him more, we wouldn’t be out $2 trillion.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
March 10th, 2013
9:22 am
And 50 million people who have democracy today in the heart of the Middle East would still be living under repressive, murderous regimes.
Our President Bush’s two unfunded wars started a democracy revolution in that part of the world that will reap huge dividends in the long term as other Arab countries demand more freedom. The Arab Spring is an echo of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the Nobel Peace Prize were awarded for actual accomplishments, Obozo’s would be ripped from his hands and presented to Our President Bush.