PDA

View Full Version : True colours....



Qtec
01-04-2011, 02:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah, the return of voodoo economics! Steve Benen points out that, in addition to a new House rule that requires spending cuts in place of any new or expanded programs <u>(a rule that doesn't apply to tax cuts, of course)</u>, there's another time bomb in there:

And then there's the other part of House Republicans' new budget rules.

<u> A little-noticed detail</u> in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee. As National Journal's Katy O'Donnell reports, the new rules say that, for fiscal 2011, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the chairman will set spending limits without needing a vote.</span>

If that sounds insane, that's because it is. Under the proposed rules, Ryan would be empowered to single-handedly establish spending levels if the House and Senate struggle to agree on a budget resolution. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just as important, Ryan's levels would be binding on the chamber, without even being subjected to a vote.</span>

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained:

This rule change ... means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. [...]

Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the [2008] level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of order.

In addition to inviting a crisis and almost-unavoidable government shutdown, Pat Garofalo reminds us, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"The proposed change also seems to fly in the face of the GOP's promise to end backroom deals and increase transparency, as with one vote, the GOP House may yoke itself to a budget that has never been made public.

"Worse, the chamber would be forced to honor mandatory spending levels,<u> established by one crackpot lawmaker,</u> which the rest of Congress would never have even voted on.
</span>
We're starting to see some outrage from House Democrats on this, but the fix may be in. </div></div> link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-gop-house-usurp-power-purse-and-h)

Sounds like Fascism to me.


Its a power grab, can't wait for the TP to march on DC with their pitchforks.



Q

LWW
01-04-2011, 03:31 AM
It's well established that you don't have the slightest clue what fascism is.

That being said, there are plenty of fascists in the republichicken party.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-04-2011, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah, the return of voodoo economics! Steve Benen points out that, in addition to a new House rule that requires spending cuts in place of any new or expanded programs <u>(a rule that doesn't apply to tax cuts, of course)</u>, there's another time bomb in there:

And then there's the other part of House Republicans' new budget rules.

<u> A little-noticed detail</u> in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee. As National Journal's Katy O'Donnell reports, the new rules say that, for fiscal 2011, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the chairman will set spending limits without needing a vote.</span>

If that sounds insane, that's because it is. Under the proposed rules, Ryan would be empowered to single-handedly establish spending levels if the House and Senate struggle to agree on a budget resolution. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just as important, Ryan's levels would be binding on the chamber, without even being subjected to a vote.</span>

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained:

This rule change ... means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. [...]

Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the [2008] level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of order.

In addition to inviting a crisis and almost-unavoidable government shutdown, Pat Garofalo reminds us, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"The proposed change also seems to fly in the face of the GOP's promise to end backroom deals and increase transparency, as with one vote, the GOP House may yoke itself to a budget that has never been made public.

"Worse, the chamber would be forced to honor mandatory spending levels,<u> established by one crackpot lawmaker,</u> which the rest of Congress would never have even voted on.
</span>
We're starting to see some outrage from House Democrats on this, but the fix may be in. </div></div> link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-gop-house-usurp-power-purse-and-h)

Sounds like Fascism to me.


Its a power grab, can't wait for the TP to march on DC with their pitchforks.



Q </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Its a power grab, can't wait for the TP to march on DC with their pitchforks.


</div></div>

LOL, don't hold your breath, those Evangelicals in the Flyover Sunbelt can't even grasp the definition of Fascism, OR Socialism.

When dead birds are dropping out of the sky, and dead fish are splashing up on their shores, they think it's a sign of the End Of Times, pollution, which is killing more and more of them, their friends, and their own famly members, apparently doesn't even enter their twisted little brains, hence, they vote Repiglican, a vote against their own best interest, for more wars, higher theft of all by the American Oil Cartel, and more cancer and corruption by corporate fascist pigs.

As proof of their stupidity, this is their top contender for 2012....


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
By Perry Bacon Jr. and Garance Franke-Ruta
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The shooting deaths Sunday of four police officers near Tacoma, Wash., and the ensuing manhunt for the suspect have renewed scrutiny of the pardon record of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who commuted the suspect's prison term nine years ago, leading to his release.

Huckabee is one of the Republican Party's most popular figures, but he has been dogged by questions over the more than 1,000 commutations and pardons he issued -- more than his three predecessors combined -- during his 10-year tenure.

In his 2008 presidential campaign, he faced similar questions over the release from prison of convicted rapist Wayne DuMond, who was convicted of another rape and a murder.

Huckabee tried then to distance himself from any role in the DuMond parole, and on Sunday he similarly pointed at "a series of failures in the criminal justice system" regarding Maurice Clemmons. Police in Washington state are searching for Clemmons in connection with the shooting of the officers at a coffee shop as they were starting their shifts.



Clemmons was convicted in Arkansas in 1989 of robbery and theft, and he was serving a lengthy prison term when Huckabee commuted it in 2000. The Arkansas parole board subsequently released him from prison.

Huckabee's aides declined a request for an interview with the former governor and current Fox News Channel talk show host. They sought to cast Clemmons's release from prison as a collective error of both Arkansas officials and those in Washington state, where he had been released on bail after being charged with assault on a police officer and rape.

Michelle Malkin, a popular conservative blogger, dubbed the situation "Huckabee's Willie Horton," likening it to the convicted killer whose crimes upon his release from prison hurt the 1988 presidential campaign of then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis (D).

Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist, said: "This story is political quicksand, and if the Republican conservative establishment doesn't throw him a lifeline immediately, it could be very damaging to a presidential run."

Robert Herzfeld, a former prosecutor in Arkansas who sharply opposed some of Huckabee's clemencies, said, "When you put that many people out of jail, it's inevitable someone is going to commit more crimes."

Huckabee won the GOP's Iowa caucuses in 2008 and went on to claim several other key states, but he ultimately lost the party's nomination to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Republicans rank him in polls along with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as their favorites for the 2012 campaign. A Des Moines Register poll last month showed Huckabee with higher favorable ratings in Iowa than most of the other leading contenders.

This September, Huckabee won a straw poll at the Values Voters Summit in Washington, highlighting his appeal to social conservatives.



</div></div>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113003928.html

pooltchr
01-04-2011, 07:54 AM
[quote=Qtec] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah, the return of voodoo economics! Steve Benen points out that, in addition to a new House rule that requires spending cuts in place of any new or expanded programs [u

for fiscal 2011, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the chairman will set spending limits without needing a vote.</span>

Q </div></div>

OK, a new house rule that requires spending cuts in place of any new or expanded programs sounds an awful lot like the Pay-Go rule that the Dems passed, and then totally ignored. I don't see a problem forcing the government to at least attempt to actually find a source of money to pay for expanding government programs. It actually makes sense.

As for establishing spending limits, if you notice, it is for ONE YEAR. The arguement we heard from the left regarding "stimulus" was that we had a critical economic problem that required extraordinary measures. Well, we learned later that didn't really help the economy at all. Now that the Reps are in charge, they are planning on doing what they said they would do when they were campaigning...cut government spending!

Again, makes great economic sense.

The US can not continue to spend, borrow, and print money just because Washington wants to expand. The only solution that will work is to decrease spending. At the very least, we have to stop increasing what we spend.

Is your problem with the actual sound fiscal policy, or just the fact that the Reps will be the ones who are making it happen?

Steve

LWW
01-04-2011, 01:33 PM
IF the republicans force Obama into fiscal sanity as the forced Clinton into it ... Snoopy and company will sing the praises of dear leader once the results are in.

Remember all the wailing and gnashing of collectivist teeth over deficit reduction? Remember "THE GINGRICH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS!" ...or the federal shutdown being the end of the world ... or welfare reform being the equivalent of starving the disabled?

Well ... even though Clinton fought against all of it, today they trip over each other seeing who can give hime the most credit the fastest.

They will do the same again ... it's just who they are.

LWW