View Full Version : REALITY CHECK TIME

09-24-2011, 05:14 AM
Let's review:

- The left has wailed and gnashed their collectivist toofies over the EEEVILLL republicans forcing draconian cuts that will supposedly harm the poor. Chief among these complaints was the hint that even one thin dime be cut from the FEMA budget. Now, who is forcing a FEMA shutdown? Harry Reid and the democrats.

- The left has stamped their footsies and cried in their STARBUCKS venti soy hazelnut cappuccino over the republicans using cloture. Now, who is using cloture to block a senate vote to keep FEMA going? Harry Reid and the democrats.

- The democrats in congress have thumped their chests in a manner similar to what one would expect from a free range gorilla about their heroic passage of "PAYGO" to curb deficit spending. Now, who is refusing to honor PAYGO? Harry Reid and the democrats.

Now ... who here will be the first to explain that the cabal has never actually been in favor of FEMA funding or PAYGO?

Or, as I suspect, will the answer be that just because Harry Reid and the democrats are blocking FEMA funding by blocking an up or down vote doesn't mean that Harry Reid and the democrats are blocking FEMA funding by blocking an up or down vote.

DEY HAZ DUNN BIN PUNK'D AGIN! (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/23/senate-blocks-emergency-disaster-money/?page=1)

09-25-2011, 09:56 PM
Hmmmm. Reality check fail.

Reid's Senate TABLED the bill, they didn't filibuster it, and didn't cause a motion for cloture to fail (the 60 vote threshold is for cloture, or technically, the 3/5ths vote of any quorum in attendance).

He did not deny an up or down vote by requiring an otherwise sufficient majority to beat his position to come up with 60 votes to have the vote (by being forced to pass cloture). He <span style='font-size: 14pt'>HAD an up or down vote, and his side got 59 votes</span>, not just 41. His very large majority vote (to table, and thus, act on the House bill-- by essentially killing it) included Republicans, as it must have, since the days of 59 Democrats in the Senate are gone.

All of this is reported in the article. Your false comparisons misrepresented what you knew happened to make a case when there is none.

The rest of your cant is likewise wrong-headed.

When Congress DID honor the pay-go system, from when the Democratic-majority Senate imposed it during HW's term, through the 8 years of the Clinton administration, Congress ALWAYS put emergency spending out of the reach of that policy. It was never offset, or required to be offset but waived of offsets.

This comprehensive CBO review report (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=1050&type=0) says of the original deal that

The agreements did not require offsets for dire emergency supplementals.

It later explains the same was true in the Clinton years under the Paygo policy.

That policy expired in 2002. During the total of 6 years of GOP control of the Congress and WH, mostly without Paygo, the national debt net of trust funds rose $3 trillion dollars, or $500 billion a year on rough average.

When Congress repassed the Paygo, it explicitly, not just by agreement, excluded emergency spending.

At the beginning of the 111th Congress, PAYGO was modified by including an "emergency" exemption. (which see) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO)

That's the Senate's current position, by a wide margin. It is the House that wants to change this long-standing practice. They passed it, the Senate disposed of it, and the ball is now in the House's court to play ball by the rules.

You slavishly echo a false rear-guard action to cover their disgraced retreat, probably thinking it true. You fell for it again.

Or maybe not. Maybe you really knew it was a false comparison, and didn't care, thinking it clever, plausible to grade-schoolers at least, and any club is good if you can bash your foes?

I can't decide which would be worse.

09-26-2011, 12:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm. Reality check fail.</div></div>

With you, it usually does.

09-26-2011, 02:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm. Reality check fail.</div></div>

With you, it usually does. </div></div>

That all you got? LOL Pretty pathetic. Why not just admit you got it wrong?


09-26-2011, 03:55 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zYcZKDn2CMM/SOP2TUfrfmI/AAAAAAAAEWw/RcPlkAO7mIY/s400/head-up-ass-2.jpg

Q </div></div>

09-26-2011, 04:03 AM

Childish, immature and without substance. The intelectual equivalent of "Nah nah.. nah-nah.... Nah....."... whilst sticking your thumbs in your ears and waving you fingers about.

This is what I mean about having an adult conversation, you are incapable of it.


09-26-2011, 04:44 AM
Did you buy your bridge or lease it?

09-26-2011, 10:19 AM
I agree: when I check out things you claim are real, I typically find out they are not real, and wholly misrepresented.

Don't go changing, just to please me!

But how exactly did you miss that Reid held an 'up or down vote' instead of a cloture motion vote?

Are you a civics nitwit or what?

Demanding that the cloture threshold be met is a tool of the minority, to block what would otherwise be a winning majority from passing the bill with 50% + 1 of the quorum.

Reid instead held a REGULAR (up or down) vote, and had about 12 votes more than he needed, as conservative Republicans joined in that majority vote with all but one of the Democrats in the Senate.

Just a fact.