• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House GOP revolts against Boehner plan

I guess in your opinion a bad dream is still better that no plan?

neither of the plans that have passed are bad plans - though CC&B was better.

Wasn't it the same way with health care? The Rightos agreed that it needed to be reformed, but they had no viable plan to demonstrate that the demo plan was worst than theirs?

on the contrary, the Right is awash in plans for healthcare reform. and, where we have been in government (for example, in Indiana), we have been demonstrating their superiority.

Didn't they blame the high raising health costs on incompetent doctors being sued for malpratice?

that is part of it, but the main killer is our idiotic third-party-payment system

Was Boehner's plan a plan or a dream? Or, did it continue to rubber stamp half the problem? Not making everyone pay their share,

as far as I am aware, the Boehner Plan does not raise taxes on the middle class, who are currently not paying their fair share, no.

I didn't read this fantsy literature, but was it squacking about passing a balanced budget admendment?

which is an excellent addition and badly needed.
 
ANY plan. ANY plan that indicates what hard choices he is willing to make. ANYTHING that would at least let us know where the man STANDS and serve as an unmovable starting point for negotiation.

It's not about high quantity. But it is at least about showing up. So Far Republicans sent up one bill, it died in the Senate, and so they have sent another, which has died in the Senate. The Republican Leader in the House and Democrat Leader in the Senate went to the White House with a bipartisan deal they'd hammered out between them, and the White House killed it.

So, thus far, Republicans have given us two plans, and Democrats have killed both of them while producing nothing. that's not Governing. That's footstamping and holding ones' breath until you get your way.

The Dems have proposed several plans, including one that just raises the debt ceiling. The repubs rejected every single one of them.

You're ignoring plans from the Dems just to have a point to make.
 
on the contrary, the Right is awash in plans for healthcare reform. and, where we have been in government (for example, in Indiana), we have been demonstrating their superiority.

Yes, I remember all the health care bills the repubs passed when they controlled the house, the senate, and the white house :roll:



that is part of it, but the main killer is our idiotic third-party-payment system

Now the right doesn't like the free market or capitalism
 
A piece of crap if you ask me. Who in their right mind would want to go through this crap again in 6 months? The proposal the GOP has produced is nothing but a piece of crap and I'm glad the Democrats in the Senate are going to treat it as such.

ah. so you prefer the sureity of going past the deadline now as opposed to any potential risk of going past it in the future.

Be reasonable, do you think the moron Tea Party Congressmen are going to agree to anything the Democrats put forth?

sure. they could have increased revenue, as Boehner tried to offer, but if they'd put a BBA on it, it would have passed the TP Republicans. However that is neither here nor there. Whether or not they think others will vote for their bills without amending them does not excuse the Senate or the White House from their responsibility to govern.

Obama tried to negotiate a plan that would go beyond 2012

no he didn't - he killed that plan by changing his mind and trying to insist at the last minute on an extra $400 Bn in taxes. Because he wants to go past Aug 2.

- the GOP is deceitfully trying to squeeze by on a mere figure that will need to be upped again in 6 months.
Only morons would want to go through what the country is going through again in 6 months, but I guess if that is the only way you can posture politically, then that is what you go for - and at the same time, let's not expect the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes - that might just incite them into voting Democrat!

we would have to lower the top tax rates significantly for them to pay their 'fair share' - currently 6 out of 10 households receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. The wealthy are paying their share, our share, and then giving us a little extra cut off the top. The US Currently has the Most Progressive Tax Structure in the Industrialized World.
 
Yes, I remember all the health care bills the repubs passed when they controlled the house, the senate, and the white house

that would be Medicare Part D, the only government program of such size to come in at 41% under projected costs, and the only portion of Medicare so structured that it has held down cost inflation in the portion of healthcare that it effects to 1.2%.

Now the right doesn't like the free market or capitalism

our current system is not the result of a free market - it is the result of meddling in the market under the FDR administration, which was then expanded under LBJ.
 
The Dems have proposed several plans, including one that just raises the debt ceiling. The repubs rejected every single one of them.

You're ignoring plans from the Dems just to have a point to make.

where are they? all i've heard are arguments from White House Press Secretaries that you don't, you know, like, have to actually, like, you know, "write these things down", or anything....


as for the clean debt ceiling rise that everyone now agrees would be a disaster and which Obama spent most of the year demanding before he suddenly decided that he wanted to "do something big"? Democrats helped kill it.
 
that would be Medicare Part D, the only government program of such size to come in at 41% under projected costs, and the only portion of Medicare so structured that it has held down cost inflation in the portion of healthcare that it effects to 1.2%.

So you approve of the massive increase in spending on health care? And thanks for acknowledging that socialized medicine holds down costs!!

our current system is not the result of a free market - it is the result of meddling in the market under the FDR administration, which was then expanded under LBJ.

You complained about health insurance (ie third party payers). Now, you're changing your complaint to FDR and govt meddling. You're moving the goalposts
 
where are they? all i've heard are arguments from White House Press Secretaries that you don't, you know, like, have to actually, like, you know, "write these things down", or anything....

As I said, they were rejected by republicans. And what you heard is irrelevant. Just because you didn't hear it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen


as for the clean debt ceiling rise that everyone now agrees would be a disaster and which Obama spent most of the year demanding before he suddenly decided that he wanted to "do something big"? Democrats helped kill it.

Umm, since it was proposed, it is obvious that not "everyone agrees" that it would be a disaster.

And now, you're switching from "it didn't happen" to "Democrats helped kill it". You're moving the goalposts again.
 
neither of the plans that have passed are bad plans - though CC&B was better.

Really, not bad for whom? The rich?


on the contrary, the Right is awash in plans for healthcare reform. and, where we have been in government (for example, in Indiana), we have been demonstrating their superiority.

Really, these were plans? I thought they were only statements, nothing to fix the problem immediately. Talking about fixing health care is not fixing it and is not a plan. In the end it is talk.

that is part of it, but the main killer is our idiotic third-party-payment system

That is most of it. The right blames lawsuits on the high cost of health care, not the greedy pharmacuticals (sic) or insurance plans that drop paying policy holders with major illnesses. Again, they don't blame Greed on the problem.

as far as I am aware, the Boehner Plan does not raise taxes on the middle class, who are currently not paying their fair share, no.

Really, let's do a ratio, for what the MC makes, they pay more than their share of taxes. Not to mention they pay for the entitlements they get later in life. If the BIG Corps and Oil paid their share, for the benefits they recieve, we'd not be having this discussion.

which is an excellent addition and badly needed.

No it is not needed. We don't need to spend more money on a concept that will not pass the states or the senate. We need for everyone to pay their fair share. And, we need to have responsible gov't (hey you trust big business to do the right thing, I have my fantasy also?)

Isn't the right always saying you should not regulate anything? You should like Wall Street play without rules because they will not do damage to our economy, or Insurance companies should not be watched because they are not interested in the bottom line, they care for those that pay for insurance.

What is needed is the enforcement of the other admendments, e.g. 14th equal protection, etc.
 
Last edited:
obama plans are just too delicate for today's politically charged environment

The devil certainly is in the details for the White House, as the clamor from some members of Congress for specifics on what President Obama is proposing has drifted over to the briefing room, where answers are scanty.

Now reporters are looking for more detail -- as Obama might say, less posturing -- about what, exactly, the White House is proposing on the deficit.

Newly minted Fox News reporter Ed Henry wondered at the daily briefing what the point of Monday's national address was, given the lack of a specific Obama plan for closing the deal.

White House press secretary Jay Carney called demands for more detail, "talking points issued by the Republican Party," adding, "I get that, OK?"

Amid Henry's protestations that the talking point crack was unfair, Carney continued:

"He explained a lot of the detail," Carney said. "The president stood before you -- I can't remember if you were here Friday night. Some of you weren't, because you cut out early, but a lot of you were."

Responded members of the press: "Ooooooohhhh!"

"We have shown a lot of leg on what we were proposing," Carney said.

Pressed for more details -- something on paper? Some numbers? Carney grew scornful.

"I mean, look, you need something printed for you, you can't write it down?" he said. "There is ample detail."

Reminded that Obama on Friday also promised to walk reporters through the process, saying, "We'll go through all the paper" but then there was no paper, Carney told the press to grow up:

"Most of you are veteran Washington reporters," Carney said. "You know how this process works: that if you -- that when you put forward a position, it becomes highly -- on difficult issues before a compromise is reached, it becomes charged politically and your chances of acting getting an agreement diminish significantly. That's how it works. You know that's how it works."

Carney turns tables, mocks press | POLITICO 44

one can appreciate the president's pusillanimity, the only time he's actually put numbers on paper he was rejected by his own senate, 97 to 0

leadership, anyone?
 
So you approve of the massive increase in spending on health care?

i approve of the structure of Medicare Part D, and I appreciate the power of it's results. the rest of Medicare needs to be moved to a similar structure, and I am glad that Republicans have voted to do so.

And thanks for acknowledging that socialized medicine holds down costs!!

Medicare Part D works to hold down costs because it utilizes market pressure. what we have seen from socialized medicine is that costs climb rapidly while expenditures are controlled through rationing.

You complained about health insurance (ie third party payers). Now, you're changing your complaint to FDR and govt meddling. You're moving the goalposts

not at all. the reason we get health insurance from our employers, and the reason why we overpurchase health insurance is because of FDR's meddling in the labor market. like agricultural subsidies, it was a stupid policy that took on a life of it's own and which we've never changed.
 
Last edited:
Really, not bad for whom? The rich?

not bad for the nation. The wealthy "need" us to avoid fiscal meltdown much less - they have, after all, the ability to shift rapidly. It's the middle and lower income classes that need to worry about the inevitable results of our overspending.

Really, these were plans? I thought they were only statements, nothing to fix the problem immediately. Talking about fixing health care is not fixing it and is not a plan. In the end it is talk.

agreed, which is why I am glad that Republicans have put forth a variety of plans that would help us lower Healthcare costs and expenditures. In Indiana, for example, Republican Governor Mitch Daniels introduced HSA's to the state workforce, and was able to reduce state expenditures by 11%.

That is most of it. The right blames lawsuits on the high cost of health care, not the greedy pharmacuticals (sic) or insurance plans that drop paying policy holders with major illnesses. Again, they don't blame Greed on the problem.

you have just contradicted your own argument, claiming first that the Right Wing blames the greed of Tort Lawyers, and then complaining that they don't blame "greed".

In reality, the need for tort insurance does drive up healthcare costs. I had a friends father close his OB/GYN practice when malpractice insurance in his state rose to $200,000 a year. it is an expense that our legal system drives higher than it should be - and loser pays is a good market-pressure fix to that; certainly better than some artificial cap system.

But again, you are fighting a strawman. because tort reform is not the key piece needed (according to conservatives) to bring down the rise in the cost of Healthcare; we need to bring market pressure in by altering the way we pay for it.

Really, let's do a ratio, for what the MC makes, they pay more than their share of taxes.

the highest earning decile in the US gets about 33.5% of of our total income; but they pay a little over 45% of our tax burden. meanwhile, US Households are now receiving more from Uncle Sam than we are paying in Taxes.

If the BIG Corps and Oil paid their share, for the benefits they recieve, we'd not be having this discussion.

those companies pay their taxes according to our current tax code. they take deductions and credits the same as the President does, the same as the middle class family does, the same as the lower income family does. I'm all for stripping out credits and deductions from the Tax Code, but let's not pretend that doing so for oil companies is going to provide much more than a drop in the bucket.

No it is not needed. We don't need to spend more money on a concept that will not pass the states or the senate.

the BBA is needed (both parties have now officially proven themselves to be completely incapable of disciplining themselves), and it will pass the States.

After it passes the Senate.

in 2013.

We need for everyone to pay their fair share. And, we need to have responsible gov't (hey you trust big business to do the right thing, I have my fantasy also?)

i don't trust big business or big government to do the right thing. I trust them to follow their incentives and do what is best for them. That is why I want to alter our regulatory and tax structure to make it good for business to invest and expand here in America.

Isn't the right always saying you should not regulate anything?

no. we are saying we should regulate intelligently, which the left seems to have confused with regulate more. We could pass regulation stating that each employer shall be fined $100,000 for each new job he creates and it would be regulating the job market - that wouldn't make it wise.

You should like Wall Street play without rules because they will not do damage to our economy, or Insurance companies should not be watched because they are not interested in the bottom line, they care for those that pay for insurance.

on the contrary; insurance companies should face steep punishment should they violate their contracts. enforcement of contract is one of the prime reasons for government in the first place.

What is needed is the enforcement of the other admendments, e.g. 14th equal protection, etc.

:) not to mention the 10th.
 
i approve of the structure of Medicare Part D, and I appreciate the power of it's results. the rest of Medicare needs to be moved to a similar structure, and I am glad that Republicans have voted to do so.

Thanks for admitting that socialism works!!

Medicare Part D works to hold down costs because it utilizes market pressure. what we have seen from socialized medicine is that costs climb rapidly while expenditures are controlled through rationing.

Every nation with a socialized health care system has lower costs than the US, and many provide better health care. In the US, health care is rationed. Only those who can afford it get it

But thanks for admitting that socialized medicine works!!


not at all. the reason we get health insurance from our employers, and the reason why we overpurchase health insurance is because of FDR's meddling in the labor market. like agricultural subsidies, it was a stupid policy that took on a life of it's own and which we've never changed.

That's not what you said at first. But I won't complain if you back away from your prior nonsense. I would do the same if I had said something so absurd

So why don't you tell us about that massive cut in spending you claimed happened sometime in the last century? Will you ever back that up, or were you hoping I'd forget about it?
 
vote obama, 2012!

socialism works!

LOL!

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
Thanks for admitting that socialism works!!

....thereby indicating that in fact, you have no idea what Medicare D is or how it functions.....

but hey, if letting you call the Ryan Plan "socialism" will get you to vote for it.... :shrug: a rose by any other name. go right on ahead with your bad self.

Every nation with a socialized health care system has lower costs than the US

you are mistaking "costs" with "expenditures".

, and many provide better health care.

this is incorrect. particularly when it comes to access and severe condition survival rates, the US system is superior.

In the US, health care is rationed. Only those who can afford it get it

this is incorrect. not only do we have Medicaid to take care of those who have difficulty affording medical care, our emergency rooms are required by law to treat any who come in.

But thanks for admitting that socialized medicine works!!

again. whatever you want to call it. but if you think that applying market pressure to a corporatist system in which costs are socialized while benefits are individualized is "socialism".... then you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

That's not what you said at first. But I won't complain if you back away from your prior nonsense. I would do the same if I had said something so absurd

:shrug: my position hasn't changed at all. this isn't exactly the first time I've argued precisely this point.

So why don't you tell us about that massive cut in spending you claimed happened sometime in the last century? Will you ever back that up, or were you hoping I'd forget about it?

:) More than happy to give you such an example:

The Not So Great Depression

...America’s greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson — who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson’s mess — in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million...

One of Harding’s campaign slogans was “less government in business,” and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and “excess” profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000...

Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. [[cpwill notes: that is a cut of 49%. Were we to do this today, we would be running a surplus]] Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding’s policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930...

With Harding’s tax and spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million — a reported 6.7 percent of the labor force — in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring 20s were underway. The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching an extraordinary low of 1.8 percent in 1926. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.

The Roaring 20s were a time of unprecedented prosperity. GNP expanded year after year without inflation. Productivity improved, and real wages increased. The stock market tripled. There was a dramatic expansion of the middle class. The Great Migration occurred during the 1920s, with some 7 million African-Americans moving north for better schools and job opportunities. Women had the vote. Millions of Americans began to buy cars, originally a luxury of the rich. People bought radios that enabled ordinary people to hear the finest entertainers in their own homes. Movies became popular. Frozen food made possible a more varied diet year-round. Doctors developed new medicines to fight deadly diseases like diphtheria and tuberculosis...​



would you like to hear about an even greater reduction in government spending, one which Keynesian economists uniformly would produce massive unemployment, but which instead helped fuel a major economic boom?
 
....thereby indicating that in fact, you have no idea what Medicare D is or how it functions.....

It is socialistic. The govt runs it. Socialism and capitalism are compatible. Just look at Sweden

but hey, if letting you call the Ryan Plan "socialism" will get you to vote for it.... :shrug: a rose by any other name. go right on ahead with your bad self.

Never said that, but if you can't refute what I actually did say, go right on and have fun with your myths


you are mistaking "costs" with "expenditures".

No, I'm referring to costs.

this is incorrect. particularly when it comes to access and severe condition survival rates, the US system is superior.

You can cherry pick all you want and find one or two areas where the US does better, but other nations with socialized health care get better outcomes for less money

this is incorrect. not only do we have Medicaid to take care of those who have difficulty affording medical care, our emergency rooms are required by law to treat any who come in.

Medicaid doesn't cover everything (rationing) and ER's only have to stabilize a patient (another form of rationing)


again. whatever you want to call it. but if you think that applying market pressure to a corporatist system in which costs are socialized while benefits are individualized is "socialism".... then you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Again, if you think socialism doesn't allow market forces to work, then you don't know what socialism is



:shrug: my position hasn't changed at all. this isn't exactly the first time I've argued precisely this point.

Sure, it hasn't :shrug:

And the NR is ridiculously biased, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us when the US Feds cut spending massively in the last 100 years. I can wait
 
It is socialistic. The govt runs it. Socialism and capitalism are compatible. Just look at Sweden

:sigh:

Socialism involves government ownership of the means of production, there are arguments that government control of the means of production (sometimes also called Corporatism) should fall under the broader heading of Socialism as well.

Medicare Part D, however, isn't "run by" the government in that top-down sense - it is run by the individual consumer. All the government does is supply the money, the consumer makes the choice as to what plan they want from what private company, and the individual covers part of the cost and feels part of the price pressure.

that is, in fact, why it works so well.

Never said that, but if you can't refute what I actually did say, go right on and have fun with your myths

dude. what you are calling "socialism" one paragraph above? is the Ryan Plan for Medicare.

No, I'm referring to costs.

no, you are referring to expenditures. as in "sweden spends a lower percent of GDP than the US on healthcare" or "in France they spend an average of $8K per person per year, while we spend $15K". costs include quite a bit else, and much of it is non-fiscal.

You can cherry pick all you want and find one or two areas where the US does better, but other nations with socialized health care get better outcomes for less money

maybe it's just me, but I would think that "access to medical care" and "the ability to survive disease" would be pretty major indicators of "outcome".

Medicaid doesn't cover everything (rationing) and ER's only have to stabilize a patient (another form of rationing)

that is true. but it still gives the lie to your claim that those who cannot afford healthcare on their own do not receive it in the United States.

Again, if you think socialism doesn't allow market forces to work, then you don't know what socialism is

oh this will be fun. please, enlighten me. but I want citation :D

Sure, it hasn't :shrug:

And the NR is ridiculously biased, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us when the US Feds cut spending massively in the last 100 years. I can wait

well, i gave you one time when they cut it by about 49% and the result was economic boom.

post WWII, of course, they cut it by even more than that - even as they were demobilizing the military. Keynesians were unanimous that this would lead to massive unemployment. Instead it topped out at about.... 4%. and we had an economic boom.
 
:sigh:

Socialism involves government ownership of the means of production, there are arguments that government control of the means of production (sometimes also called Corporatism) should fall under the broader heading of Socialism as well.

Medicare Part D, however, isn't "run by" the government in that top-down sense - it is run by the individual consumer. All the government does is supply the money, the consumer makes the choice as to what plan they want from what private company, and the individual covers part of the cost and feels part of the price pressure.

Socialism doesn't require the govt to run it. All it requires is that the govt control the rules by which it operates. The govt sets the limits by which the market can act. It is socialistic

that is, in fact, why it works so well.

It is, in fact, why socialism works so well and the free market does not


dude. what you are calling "socialism" one paragraph above? is the Ryan Plan for Medicare.

I said nothing about the Ryan Plan. You just imagine my comments apply to the Ryan plan


no, you are referring to expenditures. as in "sweden spends a lower percent of GDP than the US on healthcare" or "in France they spend an average of $8K per person per year, while we spend $15K". costs include quite a bit else, and much of it is non-fiscal.

Oh, Isee what you're getting at. You want to include mythical "costs" that your inane ideology claims exists


maybe it's just me, but I would think that "access to medical care" and "the ability to survive disease" would be pretty major indicators of "outcome".

They are factors, but that are not the same thing as "outcomes". Nice try at sophistry, but it needs work

that is true. but it still gives the lie to your claim that those who cannot afford healthcare on their own do not receive it in the United States.

Maybe that's why I did not say "afford health care on their own". You had to add the last three words.


oh this will be fun. please, enlighten me. but I want citation :D

Sweden, a socialist nation with capitalistic corporations.

well, i gave you one time when they cut it by about 49% and the result was economic boom.

post WWII, of course, they cut it by even more than that - even as they were demobilizing the military. Keynesians were unanimous that this would lead to massive unemployment. Instead it topped out at about.... 4%. and we had an economic boom.

You're talking about 1945-1949 right?

We had a much higher tax rate back then. And the rest of the worlds productive capacity had been destroyed. IN adidition, revenues were lower, even with the higher tax rates, and the spending cuts were concentrated on military spending. If you are advocating for a 49% reduction in military spending, then I have no problem with that.

But that's not what you're proposing, now is it?
 
okay ... so I guess we go with the senate plan ......... oppps sorry they don't have one ..
Never mind that all Republican Congressmen will unanimously vote "no" on any proposal that is submitted by Democrats because they won't vote "yes" on anything that even hints at raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Of course, Republicans don't mind wasting valuable time on plans that only their own radical Tea Party group will go along with.

Time to go with the Preisdent's plan .... oppps sorry he doesn't have one either ....
Oh, the President submitted one, or do the ones that get voted "no" don't count? OK, well then, I guess the ones the Republicans have submitted don't count either, because none of them have been passed.
So lets see ... what is it we are suppose to go with ?? Times getting kinda short ... and not one single Democratic plan ....
Well, a lot of the "vocal negotiations" are just as good as those on paper, because until they can come to some agreement, they can submit their worthless plans (like Ryan's) and they will get nowhere. They have to have an idea of what the other side is going to agree on, and so far the Republicans just want to roll over the middle class and protect the wealthy.

laughs ....
What is this? A screenplay?

but of course ... it's the Republican's fault ... But that is the way of the liberal ... no plan of their own .... just tell the American people how bad the other sides plan is .. .
It isn't about who can produce the most plans - it is about who can produce the plan that will "most" help America and benefit the country without putting the elderly and the middle-class in harm's way - and so far, the worthless pieces of crap the Republicans have put forth have done just that. They want to protect the wealthy and the corporations and the heck with the rest of the country - the Democrats are not going to put up with that nonsense that Bush introduced and more power to them.

And, they don't have to tell us how bad the Republican plans are - it has been plain to see. Even Republicans told Ryan his plan stunk! Of course, some have not gotten the word yet - or don't understand, or don't care - or, are just plain ignorant.
 
=mertex;1059701847]Never mind that all Republican Congressmen will unanimously vote "no" on any proposal that is submitted by Democrats because they won't vote "yes" on anything that even hints at raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Of course, Republicans don't mind wasting valuable time on plans that only their own radical Tea Party group will go along with.

Well until you submit a plan for them to vote no on … you have nothing, just saying so doesn't make it so. There was “no” plan submitted by the Dem's for a vote....


Oh, the President submitted one, or do the ones that get voted "no" don't count? OK, well then, I guess the ones the Republicans have submitted don't count either, because none of them have been passed.

Really ?? I'm sorry .. care to give a link to the presidents plan that was voted no on ??


Well, a lot of the "vocal negotiations" are just as good as those on paper, because until they can come to some agreement, they can submit their worthless plans (like Ryan's) and they will get nowhere. They have to have an idea of what the other side is going to agree on, and so far the Republicans just want to roll over the middle class and protect the wealthy.

Oh I see so we are now down to vocal negotiations, so exactly how does the president sign a vocal plan?? Maybe he just vocally declares it a law huh?


What is this? A screenplay?

No not a screen play, it's me laughing at you


It isn't about who can produce the most plans - it is about who can produce the plan that will "most" help America and benefit the country without putting the elderly and the middle-class in harm's way - and so far, the worthless pieces of crap the Republicans have put forth have done just that. They want to protect the wealthy and the corporations and the heck with the rest of the country - the Democrats are not going to put up with that nonsense that Bush introduced and more power to them.

Sheeez go back to MSNBC and get some more talking points, because you don't have the faintest idea what was in any plans that were “written” and submitted. You say the dems aren't going to put up with any nonsense that Bush introduced ?? Funny I thought he served his two terms and was out of government at the end of 2008. But if you think that the Dems should vote no to nonsense, that's fine … that's the way I feel the Republicans should do too, so we agree … we just disagree on what is nonsense.

And, they don't have to tell us how bad the Republican plans are - it has been plain to see. Even Republicans told Ryan his plan stunk! Of course, some have not gotten the word yet - or don't understand, or don't care - or, are just plain ignorant.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah we should do like we did with the nonsensical health care plan .. just pass it so we can see whats in it right ? Or better yet lets just vocally pass that bill ... and the President can vocally declare it to be the law of the land .........................That is just as ignorant … and you liked that idea .. what does that say about you?
 
Submitting plans that have no chance of passing is political theater and a waste of time. That's why the Republicans do it so often.
 
Well until you submit a plan for them to vote no on … you have nothing, just saying so doesn't make it so. There was “no” plan submitted by the Dem's for a vote....

The Democrats in the House and Senate know better than to waste their time and effort and our tax-payer money on something the Party of "no" is going to reject. It is no secret the Party of "no" controls the House - nothing gets passed without getting House approval. On the other hand, the stupid Republicans wasted valuable time and effort, not to mention our tax-payer money repealing Health Care - did it go anywhere? No - well, I'm sure you get the picture, (or not).

Really ?? I'm sorry .. care to give a link to the presidents plan that was voted no on ??
Yes, really! Geez, doesn't Faux News cover such a thing as this? Guess not. Maybe it is true that Faux News viewers are the least informed. Time to check out some other news sources.

The budget proposal released by the White House back in February didn’t win a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday— the final tally was 0-97. Senate Republicans pushed for the vote as a counterpoint to the defeat of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
Unanimous rejection | POLITICO 44

Oh I see so we are now down to vocal negotiations, so exactly how does the president sign a vocal plan?? Maybe he just vocally declares it a law huh?
Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when both parties come to certain agreements, they write them down. Geez, I think that is what finally came down, or didn't you know? They discussed it and changed some of the items! Duh!

No not a screen play, it's me laughing at you
It sounded rather stupid, I guess you knew that, (or not)!



Sheeez go back to MSNBC and get some more talking points, because you don't have the faintest idea what was in any plans that were “written” and submitted. You say the dems aren't going to put up with any nonsense that Bush introduced ?? Funny I thought he served his two terms and was out of government at the end of 2008. But if you think that the Dems should vote no to nonsense, that's fine … that's the way I feel the Republicans should do too, so we agree … we just disagree on what is nonsense.

Ha,ha, it is true, the Faux News viewers are the least informed! FYI, the Bush Tax Cuts are still being negotiated - and the Republicans will sell their first-born to keep them, after all, it is their base they are protecting. Someone needs to bone up on what is going on, so they won't sound so uninformed!

Yeah we should do like we did with the nonsensical health care plan .. just pass it so we can see whats in it right ? Or better yet lets just vocally pass that bill ... and the President can vocally declare it to be the law of the land .........................That is just as ignorant … and you liked that idea .. what does that say about you?

The Republicans had the opportunity to read it - didn't they? I guess they didn't bother to. And, FYI, it passed - and what it says about me is that I care about the middle-class, the poor - not just the corporations and the rich of which I hope those that support the Republican Party should all be rich - otherwise they are like chickens that root for Colonel Sanders!
 
You have not a thing to worried about in terms of your party deciding to attack the President..... unless of course you actually love America and its people and are willing to crash the ship of state upon the rocks just so you can be a rabid GOP partisan and blame the captain.

You will probably get your wish.

That is the mentality of the GOP - sink the ship in order to win!

Hope they learn a lesson someday - most people are realizing the GOP doesn't care about America or its people, just being in control, so they can continue to coddle their base, the wealthy and corporations.
 
=mertex;1059715158]The Democrats in the House and Senate know better than to waste their time and effort and our tax-payer money on something the Party of "no" is going to reject. It is no secret the Party of "no" controls the House - nothing gets passed without getting House approval. On the other hand, the stupid Republicans wasted valuable time and effort, not to mention our tax-payer money repealing Health Care - did it go anywhere? No - well, I'm sure you get the picture, (or not).

Sure I get the picture, they did what they were elected to do … the platform that they ran on, and the liberals in the Senate would have none of it .. just like they would have none of the bills that were written and passed concerning raising the ceiling, so the party controlling the Senate is just as much a party of no .. as the party controlling the house.


Yes, really! Geez, doesn't Faux News cover such a thing as this? Guess not. Maybe it is true that Faux News viewers are the least informed. Time to check out some other news sources.

The budget proposal released by the White House back in February didn’t win a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday— the final tally was 0-97. Senate Republicans pushed for the vote as a counterpoint to the defeat of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
Unanimous rejection | POLITICO 44

Good lord mertex … are you really that stupid? This wasn't a budget vote .. the 2011 budget has already been passed … but it's nice to see that his budget was so bad... that even his own party rejected it .

Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when both parties come to certain agreements, they write them down. Geez, I think that is what finally came down, or didn't you know? They discussed it and changed some of the items! Duh!

And what it a vocal bill that was passed .. or a written one ?

It sounded rather stupid, I guess you knew that, (or not)!

No I didn't realize it was stupid … maybe it was just seen that way by stupid people ?

Ha,ha, it is true, the Faux News viewers are the least informed! FYI, the Bush Tax Cuts are still being negotiated - and the Republicans will sell their first-born to keep them, after all, it is their base they are protecting. Someone needs to bone up on what is going on, so they won't sound so uninformed!

They may be .. and they may not be, but the simple fact still remains .. the cuts were passed while Democrats controlled both houses and the White house, when nothing had to be done for them to expired … you do know what expire means don't you ? ......If they had expired ... as they were meant to .. . then they wouldn't need to be having discussions about them now ... would they?


The Republicans had the opportunity to read it - didn't they? I guess they didn't bother to. And, FYI, it passed - and what it says about me is that I care about the middle-class, the poor - not just the corporations and the rich of which I hope those that support the Republican Party should all be rich - otherwise they are like chickens that root for Colonel Sanders!

Who knows maybe the republicans read it ... and thats why it passed without their support .... so it must have been the democrats that didn't read it .. because it was Nancy Pelosi that stood up and said .. we must pass it to find out what's in it . ….. Sorry .. in my opinion … that is very ignorant ….. but nice to see you disagree with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom