1Perry
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 7,624
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Now, ask yourself and be honest about it...why did the Senate vote that way?
I did. It wasn't an honest effort.
Now, ask yourself and be honest about it...why did the Senate vote that way?
The rightwing believes that paying legitimate debts is "irresponsible". No wonder they always screw up the economy
What can I say, Conserv...
You have Blue-Dog Democrats amongst Liberals as you have Tea Party hardline conservatives among Republicans. Speaker Boehner isn't President, but he's having no better luck convincing members of his party to act in the best interest of the country and work with him than Pres. Obama had with conservative Democrats early in his presidency. That's why you need someone who is able to force "compromise" when you can't get your way 100%.
Christianity is built on free will and not forced redistribution. Liberals always confuse that fact and believe Jesus would force people to give to someone else. Free will promotes people doing the right thing and the fact that there are consequences for failure.
It got him a vote of 0-97. Let's make no mistake in believing that anything voted down 0-97 was anything other than a dishonest effort.
If only you had.
Now, ask yourself and be honest about it...why did the Senate vote that way?
Second you do. So, say it for the record, Bush is repsonble for increasing the debt.
And Democrats think they are God and want to be the ones that punish people for their sins, rather than God Himself.
I did. It wasn't an honest effort.
The president’s budget called for ending tax cuts for the wealthy and a three-year domestic spending freeze, saving an estimated $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democratic senators at the time called it “an important step forward”, “a good start” and a “credible blueprint.”
No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail.
Because we all know how honest those Congress critters are, right? :roll:
They all share the same republican brain cell. The names have been changed, but it's the same bunch of theives they've always been
WRONG!
It was rejected in the Senate not because it wasn't serious, but because for Republicans it called for eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy - something the GOP will not back away from - and the Dems learned of the President's intentions to propose still more spending cuts and would rather have seen the high cost cuts take affect than what was originally proposed.
So, take the President's February budget of $1 trillion in spending cuts and leave an additional $2 trillion on the table, or reject the President's plan and seek more cuts? Which would you choose? Of course a plan that was proposed in February but wasn't brought to a vote until May would be rejected if the 2nd plan was better. Who wouldn't accept the latter over the former?
Deficits don't actually reflect spending, they reflect revenue versus spending. For example, compare that chart with this one, which is actual spending by year, and you'll see both parties increase spending...When does one stop the bleeding...
When does one think that we may have spent too much?
What's the end game to all this spending?
How much more does the far left wing need to fix this? dollars please.
The deficits under the dem president went down. Under the repuke presidents, it went up
WRONG!
From the Hill.com:
It was rejected in the Senate not because it wasn't serious, but because for Republicans it called for eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy - something the GOP will not back away from - and the Dems learned of the President's intentions to propose still more spending cuts and would rather have seen the high cost cuts take affect than what was originally proposed.
So, take the President's February budget of $1 trillion in spending cuts and leave an additional $2 trillion on the table, or reject the President's plan and seek more cuts? Which would you choose? Of course a plan that was proposed in February but wasn't brought to a vote until May would be rejected if the 2nd plan was better. Who wouldn't accept the latter over the former?
There are far too many that misinterpretted the Obama "Hope and Change" Message in that they believed it meant one thing whereas Obama meant it another way. Too many buy the rhetoric, are brainwashed, overwhelmed by the youth, vigor, and smile but ignore the incompetence. You can never delegate responsibility which is what Obama does all the time. You can delegate authority but never responsibility. Someone Obama doesn't understand that.
Watch it, you are dealing with someone who runs to the Mods when challenged to get you thread banned. I want you to remain here doing a great job. Those people I ignore and will never communicate with again
Where did I say anything about a govt mandate. It would help if your responses were to things I actually said, as opposed to what you would have liked me to have said.
1.1 trillion over 10 years is 110 billion a year which won't pay the debt servive on the debt. No Democrat voted for it, why? Democrats control the Senate. Obama proposed a budget only because Ryan and the House did after Republicans took control of Congress
EXACTLY! Which is why I lay the blame for this mess squarely at the feet of Congress, not the President.
Now, ask yourself and be honest about it...why did the Senate vote that way?
Oh, so Bush and the GOP ran up the deficits and now the GOP wants to dramatically cut spending and you say they are the same. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not at all. we get the meaning of that election.
Get out and vote and don't let the wingnuts catch you resting on your fat behind.