PDA

View Full Version : Its time.



Qtec
03-31-2011, 07:09 AM
It's time for Obama to say go FK yourself to the GOP.

They want to bring Govt to a halt, so be it but it should be made clear by him that its on their head.

Call their bluff. That's what I say.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-31-2011, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for Obama to say go FK yourself to the GOP.

They want to bring Govt to a halt, so be it but it should be made clear by him that its on their head.

Call their bluff. That's what I say.

Q </div></div>

Tap- Tap Tap...actually, it looks to me like that is eactly what Democratic Senators are planning to do.

He needs to do exactly what Clinton did. Stare the Repubs down...Clinton stated clearly, he would NOT slash medicare, medicaid, education and the environment, to pay for tax cuts for the rich.


President Obama needs to throw the Republicans under the bus, along with corporate crooks!

Boehner and the REpublicans will lose big time, if government shut down comes about, no matter how much they lie about who is responsible. We have proof, that both the president, AND the Dems in the Senate, more than met them halfway!!!

BTW, since Republicans have been running the Congress, the Congress's approval ratings have dropped lower than EVER recorded...

The tide is turning, and Republican Governors are making it even worse for the Repub. Party.

That's why they put off their big shindig, until thhe summer....lol, they're hoping someone other than just another RW, "Birther" nutjob, will come out of the mist, and help them to present some viable, non radical, small group of contenders, that rean't all from La La land, as is the case with all of their Republican candidates, lol...

I hope Palin, Trump, Huckabee, Newt, Pawlenty, Barbour, Backmann and Mitt, all run! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif We can always use more comedy.

G.

LWW
03-31-2011, 03:59 PM
So ... your position is that it's the republicans fault that when the democrooks held both houses of congress plus the White House they refused to pass a budget for this year so that they could hind from the public their intention to keep spending like drunken admirals for three more years?

That's gold brother ... pure gold.

pooltchr
03-31-2011, 04:28 PM
Yeah. The Dems were afraid to pass the budget for this year before November, like the were supposed to do, because they didn't want their outrageous spending to come to light. They knew they were going to take a beating at the polls, so the pulled a chicken s##T stunt and did NOTHING!

Now, they don't want the Reps to get any credit for doing what the public, through their votes, said they wanted them to do....downsize government, and cut spending.

You have had entirely too much kool-ade!

Steve

LWW
03-31-2011, 04:41 PM
In their defense, they were told that they believe this garbage.

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 05:08 AM
Translation of above RW BS....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJC0FfqRkm4

Qtec
04-01-2011, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As government spending continues to outpace government revenue by more than a trillion dollars a year, the federal debt ceiling, legal limit to US borrowing, is nearing its max. It stands at $14 trillion, and we're on pace to blow through the ceiling in the first half of 2011. That means giving government the right to have more debt could be the first major vote of anti-debt Tea Party representatives.

RNC Chair Michael Steele and key GOP electeds have planted their feet and refused to support a higher debt ceiling. What happens if Congress does not vote to raise the roof and allow the Treasury to legally borrow more money? To get a better idea, I chatted with former Reagan adviser and Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett. Here is an edited transcript:

The idea of a debt ceiling is weird. Why can't the Treasury borrow and spend as it needs to fulfill its obligations to investors and the law?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It's an incredibly stupid system. I think no other country has a debt ceiling. These countries understand correctly that the deficit, ie the incremental increase in debt, is a consequence of decisions about taxing and spending.

There's no need to have a debt ceiling and there's no evidence that the debt limit has limited spending. It serves no purpose except to give people free votes to look as if they're being fiscally responsible ["Hey look, I voted against raising the debt limit!"] while they act fiscally irresponsible ["Also, I'm voting to cut taxes by $4 trillion."]. </span></div></div>


When GW Bush <span style='font-size: 14pt'>doubled the Nat Debt</span>, I can't remember the GOP/Cons/TP people marching to DC to say, 'enough is enough!'

Can you?

FACT.
The first black POTUS was handed to him a country that was on the brink of economic disaster. A massive debt, a massive deficit, surging unemployment, millions of foreclorures, banks failing evey day........etc etc etc etc....and you have the gall to blame him for the state of the country?

How many banks folded last year. Do you hear that kind of news on Fox and beck?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US sees 64 bank collapses in just 4 months; 23 fold up in April
PTI, May 2, 2010, 01.14pm IST
Tags:

* Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

NEW YORK: The count of American bank failures are climbing by the day, with a staggering 64 entities closing down in 2010.

Out of the total collapses, as many as 23 banks were shut down by the authorities in April, the highest for any month this year. </div></div>



Why then do you give GW Bush a free pass for making such a mess?


Q

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 05:56 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"> As government spending continues to outpace government revenue by more than a trillion dollars a year, the federal debt ceiling, legal limit to US borrowing, is nearing its max. It stands at $14 trillion, and we're on pace to blow through the ceiling in the first half of 2011. That means giving government the right to have more debt could be the first major vote of anti-debt Tea Party representatives.

RNC Chair Michael Steele and key GOP electeds have planted their feet and refused to support a higher debt ceiling. What happens if Congress does not vote to raise the roof and allow the Treasury to legally borrow more money? To get a better idea, I chatted with former Reagan adviser and Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett. Here is an edited transcript:

The idea of a debt ceiling is weird. Why can't the Treasury borrow and spend as it needs to fulfill its obligations to investors and the law?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It's an incredibly stupid system. I think no other country has a debt ceiling. These countries understand correctly that the deficit, ie the incremental increase in debt, is a consequence of decisions about taxing and spending.

There's no need to have a debt ceiling and there's no evidence that the debt limit has limited spending. It serves no purpose except to give people free votes to look as if they're being fiscally responsible ["Hey look, I voted against raising the debt limit!"] while they act fiscally irresponsible ["Also, I'm voting to cut taxes by $4 trillion."]. </span></div></div>


When GW Bush <span style='font-size: 14pt'>doubled the Nat Debt</span>, I can't remember the GOP/Cons/TP people marching to DC to say, 'enough is enough!'

Can you?

FACT.
The first black POTUS was handed to him a country that was on the brink of economic disaster. A massive debt, a massive deficit, surging unemployment, millions of foreclorures, banks failing evey day........etc etc etc etc....and you have the gall to blame him for the state of the country?

How many banks folded last year. Do you hear that kind of news on Fox and beck?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US sees 64 bank collapses in just 4 months; 23 fold up in April
PTI, May 2, 2010, 01.14pm IST
Tags:

* Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

NEW YORK: The count of American bank failures are climbing by the day, with a staggering 64 entities closing down in 2010.

Out of the total collapses, as many as 23 banks were shut down by the authorities in April, the highest for any month this year. </div></div>


Q




</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now joining me is former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. He’s a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and he’s also the author of "Aftershock."

All right, Secretary Reich, I want to play you a clip by President Obama, because there was a bill introduced earlier in the year to actually stop the subsidies for off-shoring jobs, and it didn’t pass. The Republicans killed it.

And here’s what the president had to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Republicans in Washington claimed to draw their ideas from a Web site called America Speaking Out. It turns out that one the ideas that’s drawn the most interest on their Web site is ending tax breaks for companies that ship overseas.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The funny thing is, when we recently closed one of the most egregious loopholes for companies creating jobs overseas, Republicans in Congress were almost unanimously opposed. The Republican Leader, John Boehner, attacked us for it and stood up for outsourcing instead of American workers.</span>(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Secretary, is that right? I mean, that seems so unbelievably egregious.

ROBERT REICH, FMR. LABOR SECRETARY: Well, Cenk, when you said a moment ago that this is the United States of corporate America, or at least that’s what it seems, that’s egregious enough.

I mean, big corporations are arguing in terms of getting more tax breaks or getting a tax holiday that they need it in order to have an incentive to create jobs in the United States. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But most big corporations now have plenty of money.

Corporate profits are higher than they’ve been in years. In fact, big corporations are now sitting on almost a trillion dollars worth of cash. They’re not creating jobs in the United States, they’re creating jobs abroad.</span>

UYGUR: So the fact that they kill a bill that would have stopped, you know, the loophole that allows them to get a subsidy for off-shoring, I mean, I feel like that’s such a no-brainer for the Democrats, I almost want to pull a Jon Stewart and just do this whole show and the next show and the next show after that about that.

How did the Democrats blow that? Why don’t they take advantage of that and tell the American people what’s happening?

REICH: Well, there are a lot of no-brainers for the Democrats when it comes to corporate malfeasance or nonfeasance.

Cenk, one of the problems -- and I don’t want to tar all Democrats with this, but at least some Democrats with regard to campaign donations are drinking at the same trough as Republicans. They’re going to big corporations.

Now, earlier this year, the Supreme Court, you’ll remember, said in one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history, in Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, that corporations are people and they’re entitled to provide as much money to campaigns and to politicians as they want. Otherwise, their First Amendment rights would be breached.

Well, you can’t have it both ways. You said it earlier, and I agree with you, that corporations are not people. They’re just machines. They are just designed to maximize profits.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>If we actually treat them as people and say they have First Amendment rights to undermine and corrupt our politicians and our political process, then we’re really in trouble, because they don’t really represent America and Americans.</span>

UYGUR: Well, they keep calling them American companies, or even corporate America. But do these so-called American companies have any obligation to America?

REICH: Well, unfortunately, they don’t. I mean, these global corporations have a primary obligation under the law, and also in terms of economics to their shareholders, to maximize shareholder returns.

That’s what under American capitalism corporations are supposed to do. They’re not obligated to maximize jobs. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And it turns out these days, the most rapidly growing markets are in China, India, Brazil, several other rapidly growing markets, and so American corporations are over there not only selling but also creating jobs. Not here.</span>

UYGUR: You know, the thing is, I don’t want people to get me wrong. I actually don’t think that’s crazy or bad. I get why businesses want to start factories in China and why they’re using India for labor, et cetera. I understand that. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But what drives me crazy is the idea that we should be subsidizing that.

REICH: Exactly. Cenk, I couldn’t agree with you more.

In other words, corporations should be, according to the way we organize capitalism, maximizing shareholder returns, maximizing profits. So they should be going all over the world. But there is no reason for us, taxpayers, to be subsidizing those corporations, and then those corporations taking those subsidies, or those tax breaks, and using them for creating jobs all over the world. It makes no sense at all.</span>

UYGUR: Unfortunately, I’m going to have to ask you the question that we always run into here. What can we do about it? Because the seems like the politicians, honestly, a lot in both parties -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>certainly the Republicans are a wholly-owned subsidiary of multinational corporations, but the Democrats are partly owned, as you explained.

How do we get beyond it when they have already bought the politicians?

REICH: Well, what we have to, I think all of us, get serious about campaign finance reform. I mean, eyes glaze over. It’s not an exciting topic. We’d much rather talk about holding on to health care and everything else. But unless we actually stem the flow of corporate money into American politics, everything we want to do, everything we believe in is jeopardized.</span>UYGUR: Secretary Reich, thank you so much for joining us.

REICH: Thanks, Cenk. Happy New Year.



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/cenk-uygur-and-robert-reich-corporate-tax
</div></div>

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 06:37 AM
Q and G have done a very good job of quickly changing the subject of the thread when they saw that they had been caught in their lies.

Back on topic. How can you claim the reps are responsible for our not having a budget already in place, like we are supposed to have, when it was the dems who chose not to address the budget issue prior to the Nov election?

Any other BS that doesn't address this topic is worthless.

Steve

LWW
04-01-2011, 06:55 AM
Translated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> ... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>CH-CH-CH-CHENEY!!!!</span> ...
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> ... <span style='font-size: 20pt'>B-B-B-BIG OIL!!!!</span> ...
<span style='font-size: 23pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> ...
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>


Q</div></div>

Don't you ever get any new material?

LWW
04-01-2011, 06:56 AM
And this surprises you?

Qtec
04-01-2011, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FACT.

The first black POTUS was handed to him a country that was on the brink of economic disaster.<span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>
A massive debt,<span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>a massive deficit <span style="color: #990000">FACT</span>
</span>, surging unemployment <span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>,
millions of foreclorures <span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>,and banks failing every day <span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>........etc etc etc etc....</div></div>

..<span style='font-size: 14pt'>and you have the gall to blame him for the state of the country? </span>





Q

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 07:33 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">FACT.

The first black POTUS was handed to him a country that was on the brink of economic disaster.<span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>
A massive debt,<span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>a massive deficit <span style="color: #990000">FACT</span>
</span>, surging unemployment <span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>,
millions of foreclorures <span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>,and banks failing every day <span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">FACT</span></span>........etc etc etc etc....</div></div>

..<span style='font-size: 14pt'>and you have the gall to blame him for the state of the country? </span>





Q </div></div>

Have you noticed how consumer coonfidence has dropped since Republicans took over the house????

Everything they are doing, is hurting the recovery...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 31, 2011
“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” That, according to Herbert Hoover, was the advice he received from Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary, as America plunged into depression. To be fair, there’s some question about whether Mellon actually said that; all we have is Hoover’s version, written many years later.



But one thing is clear: Mellon-style liquidationism is now the official doctrine of the G.O.P.

Two weeks ago, Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,” that argued that slashing government spending and employment in the face of a deeply depressed economy would actually create jobs. In part, they invoked the aid of the confidence fairy; more on that in a minute. But the leading argument was pure Mellon.

Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

There is, if you think about it, an immediate logical problem here: Republicans are saying that job destruction leads to lower wages, which leads to job creation. But won’t this job creation lead to higher wages, which leads to job destruction, which leads to ...? I need some aspirin.

Beyond that, why would lower wages promote higher employment?

There’s a fallacy of composition here: since workers at any individual company may be able to save their jobs by accepting a pay cut, you might think that we can increase overall employment by cutting everyone’s wages. But pay cuts at, say, General Motors have helped save some workers’ jobs by making G.M. more competitive with other companies whose wage costs haven’t fallen. There’s no comparable benefit when you cut everyone’s wages at the same time.

In fact, across-the-board wage cuts would almost certainly reduce, not increase, employment. Why? Because while earnings would fall, debts would not, so a general fall in wages would worsen the debt problems that are, at this point, the principal obstacle to recovery.

In short, Mellonism is as wrong now as it was fourscore years ago.

Now, liquidationism isn’t the only argument the G.O.P. report advances to support the claim that reducing employment actually creates jobs. It also invokes the confidence fairy; that is, it suggests that cuts in public spending will stimulate private spending by raising consumer and business confidence, leading to economic expansion. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Or maybe “suggests” isn’t the right word; “insinuates” may be closer to the mark. For a funny thing has happened lately to the doctrine of “expansionary austerity,” the notion that cutting government spending, even in a slump, leads to faster economic growth.

A year ago, conservatives gleefully trumpeted statistical studies supposedly showing many successful examples of expansionary austerity. Since then, however, those studies have been more or less thoroughly debunked by careful researchers, notably at the International Monetary Fund.

To their credit, the staffers who wrote that G.O.P. report were clearly aware that the evidence no longer supports their position. To their discredit, their response was to make the same old arguments, while adding weasel words to cover themselves: instead of asserting outright that spending cuts are expansionary, the report says that confidence effects of austerity “can boost G.D.P. growth.” Can under what circumstances? Boost relative to what? It doesn’t say.

Did I mention that in Britain, where the government that took power last May bought completely into the doctrine of expansionary austerity, the economy has stalled and business confidence has fallen to a two-year low? And even the government’s new, more pessimistic projections are based on the assumption that highly indebted British households will take on even more debt in the years ahead.

But never mind the lessons of history, or events unfolding across the Atlantic: Republicans are now fully committed to the doctrine that we must destroy employment in order to save it.

And Democrats are offering little pushback. The White House, in particular, has effectively surrendered in the war of ideas; it no longer even tries to make the case against sharp spending cuts in the face of high unemployment.

So that’s the state of policy debate in the world’s greatest nation: one party has embraced 80-year-old economic fallacies, while the other has lost the will to fight. And American families will pay the price.
</span> </div></div>

Dumb Tea Party People, and corrupt, bought and paid for, Republicans, are going to cause a second dip, or worse.


Cutting the deficit, does absolutely NOTHING, to restore jobs.

That is the big lie in their idiocy.
G.

Qtec
04-01-2011, 07:52 AM
The budget and raising the deficit ceiling are two separate things. Raising the deficit ceiling has always been a formality because not to do so would be a disaster for the country.

Now the GOP want to hold the POTUS hostage by threatening not to raise deficit ceiling unless they get their budget cuts. The Dems will vote to raise the deficit ceiling tomorrow so you can't blame them.

Q

Qtec
04-01-2011, 07:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cutting the deficit, does absolutely NOTHING, to restore jobs. </div></div>

I would say, cutting spending [ much the same thing] does absolutely NOTHING, to restore jobs.

70 % of the US economy comes from the spending power of Americans.When they have less to spend, its bad for the country.

The GOP/Con/TP mob want Americans to accept 3rd world wages and conditions. That's fine if you want the USA to be like Brazil. Super rich Vs super poor.

Q

Q

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 08:48 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">Cutting the deficit, does absolutely NOTHING, to restore jobs. </div></div>

I would say, cutting spending [ much the same thing] does absolutely NOTHING, to restore jobs.

70 % of the US economy comes from the spending power of Americans.When they have less to spend, its bad for the country.

The GOP/Con/TP mob want Americans to accept 3rd world wages and conditions. That's fine if you want the USA to be like Brazil. Super rich Vs super poor.

Q

Q </div></div>

Exactly, and it is "The Shock Doctrine" that the Republican right has been pushing since Reagan....

Just like every other time in history, it's the ignorant among us, too dumb to realize that they vote against their own bet interests....

This is from the book jacket of Thomas Frank's book, first edition, 2004!
What's The Matter With Kansas?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With his acclaimed wit and acruity, Thomas Frank turns his eye on what he calls "the Great Backlash" - the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment.

Marshaling public outrage over everything from improper flag display to un-Christian art, the backlash has achieved the most unnatural of alliances, bring together blue-collar midwesterners and Wall Street business interests, workers and bosses, populists and right-wingers.

In asking, "What's the matter with Kansas?" - how a place famous for its radicalism came to rank among the nation's most eager audiences for backlash buncombe-Frank, a native of Kansas, and onetime conservative, seeks to answer some fundamental American riddles: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? Where's the outrage at corporate thievery? Why do illusory slights to the Ten Commandments trouble some people more than do the prospects of falling wages or monopoly power or the destruction of their very way of life.

Frank answers these questions by examining the conservative revolution in his home state, a place that has lately drawn the astonished attention of the world for its unlikely skirmishes over abortion and homosexuality.

In Kansas, as in so much of mid-America, Frank finds, society's losers are even more comitted to the Republican agenda than are society's winners. The state's low-wage slaughterhouse workers and its struggling farm towns today far outdo the state's real-estate millionaires and its prosperous telecom execs in dedication to a political program that can only wind up harming them.</div></div>

IMO, It started back when Republicans bought up most of the rural radio stations, during the Nixon Administration.

It's sad, to think that these people have been so thoroughly brain washed by this Republican/Christian coalition of deceit, designed by the Republican Party, and their currupt CEO thieves, Corporate America, that they continue to vote against their own best interests.

My hope, is that there will be an awakening, in these fly-over states, as Republicans continue to destroy every single program, agency, personal right, social insurance, that protects our rights, our freedoms, our health, safety, and provides a playing field of our traditional standards, like safe working conditions, and restrictions on the poisons that corporate America, is filling our air and water with, that threr will be a return of American damand, to restore the legislative progress, which have been so judiciously achieved, those important assurances which allow that average Middle Class Americans will still have a shot at the American Dream.

The right is destroying America, and their supporters are either too stupid, or too manipulated and distracted, to realize it.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 08:50 AM
You guys simply can't stay on topic, can you?

How are the Reps responsible for our not already having a budget passed, when the DEMS failed to pass the budget last year when they were supposed to pass it?????

Come on, man (or woman) up and address the topic at hand!

After all, Q...you were the one who brought up the topic in the first place....remember?????????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for Obama to say go FK yourself to the GOP.

They want to bring Govt to a halt, so be it but it should be made clear by him that its on their head.

Call their bluff. That's what I say.

Q </div></div>

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-01-2011, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys simply can't stay on topic, can you?

How are the Reps responsible for our not already having a budget passed, when the DEMS failed to pass the budget last year when they were supposed to pass it?????

Come on, man (or woman) up and address the topic at hand!

After all, Q...you were the one who brought up the topic in the first place....remember?????????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's time for Obama to say go FK yourself to the GOP.

They want to bring Govt to a halt, so be it but it should be made clear by him that its on their head.

Call their bluff. That's what I say.

Q </div></div>

Steve </div></div>

Is this a real question?

Let's review. Passing a budget requires the House and Senate each pass the same bill(s), usually about 12 of them. Passing anything in the Senate requires 60 votes if the minority party chooses to filibuster or require votes of cloture to end debate and proceed to a final vote.

Perhaps you are unaware, but the GOP has generally chosen to filibuster and require a cloture vote needing 60 votes or more to prevail at record rates never seen before, maybe 180 times last Congressional session. This was true even on non-controversial matters that eventually received near-unanimous approval, actual supermajority levels of assent once the vote took place. Every cloture vote requires a 72-hour waiting period before it can take place.

The GOP in the Senate slow-walked all government business in a deliberate dilatory tactic, to where the House had passed over 150 bills that never received any vote in the Senate whatsoever.

But the Dems HAD 60 votes in the Senate this past session, didn't they? Yes, but only for about 4 months or so, since Franken's seating was held up until about July by dragging out that election through endless court appeals.

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you are unaware, but the GOP has generally chosen to filibuster and require a cloture vote needing 60 votes or more to prevail at record rates never seen before, maybe 180 times last Congressional session. This was true even on non-controversial matters that eventually received near-unanimous approval, actual supermajority levels of assent once the vote took place. Every cloture vote requires a 72-hour waiting period before it can take place.

</div></div>Unaware? LOL... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 10:44 AM
Come on. You know you don't actually buy that.
Our people in congress are sent there to do a job.
Part of that job is to vote on and pass an annual budget.
The Dem controlled congress failed to do their job last year.
IMO, their reason was because publically admitting how much they were planning to spend would have been a political nightmare for them in November, althought the reason isn't really the issue.
The Dem controlled congress did not do their job last year, and now they want to blame it on the Reps.

I'm just asking how it is the Reps fault that the Dems didn't do their job last year. They sure had no problem passing a ridiculous healthcare bill that nobody wanted, and wasn't necessary. Why didn't they do their job in the first place?

Steve