Shocking: Republicans to push again for automatic spending cuts, but will shield their stuff from the cuts
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.
Chance of liberals rolling over and accepting it as status quo: 100%
so vote republican: Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.
so vote republican: Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.
The problem with reducing spending is that inevitably something you like will be on the table.
The problem with reducing spending is that inevitably something you like will be on the table.
It's shocking to cut spending instead of raise spending. Democrats don't know what it means to cut spending.
I would be in shock if I was a Democrat too.
I would be in shock if I was a Democrat too.
eddyatwork: The problem with reducing spending is that inevitably something you like will be on the table.
Yes. And we certainly wouldn't want to compromise.
Yes. And we certainly wouldn't want to compromise.
surfnazi: Only if you compromise more.
Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?
Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?
so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?
I don't know. The consensus is that usually the other person should be sending all the money they make to the government in taxes.
Somehow if you're a conservative this makes you small government though.
I don't know. The consensus is that usually the other person should be sending all the money they make to the government in taxes.
Somehow if you're a conservative this makes you small government though.
so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?
Pay-out cuts to medicare and SS that take effect immediately would be pretty nice.
Pay-out cuts to medicare and SS that take effect immediately would be pretty nice.
so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?
Well, I would like to cut the military by 80%+, cut tax rates in half while removing all exemptions and loopholes, and eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA medical benefit by implementing a single-payer system in their place.
But I'm sure we could find a middle ground.
\ I would also increase the budgets for the NIH, NASA, the NSF, the DoE, the DoT, and the EPA by tenfold, but that's fiddling spare change and probably not worth bringing up at this point.
Well, I would like to cut the military by 80%+, cut tax rates in half while removing all exemptions and loopholes, and eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA medical benefit by implementing a single-payer system in their place.
But I'm sure we could find a middle ground.
\ I would also increase the budgets for the NIH, NASA, the NSF, the DoE, the DoT, and the EPA by tenfold, but that's fiddling spare change and probably not worth bringing up at this point.
What we need is an initiative for profit. I don't see anyone championing any sort of emergent technology with any seriousness.
wow.. $26.1billion a year.. what's that... 1 fucking % of our deficit spend per year???????
flashlv: It's shocking to cut spending instead of raise spending. Democrats don't know what it means to cut spending.
I would be in shock if I was a Democrat too.
i wish you knew more than stupid talking points
I would be in shock if I was a Democrat too.
i wish you knew more than stupid talking points
baron muchhumpin: i wish you knew more than stupid talking points
I wish you knew better than to give him attention.
I wish you knew better than to give him attention.
baron muchhumpin: i wish you knew more than stupid talking points
Not sure what you mean.
How is that a talking point?
Not sure what you mean.
How is that a talking point?
flashlv: Not sure what you mean.
How is that a talking point?
the implication of your claim is that only DEMs spend money, show me where repubs have reduced spending and lowered our deficit/debt over the past 20 years
How is that a talking point?
the implication of your claim is that only DEMs spend money, show me where repubs have reduced spending and lowered our deficit/debt over the past 20 years
baron muchhumpin: the implication of your claim is that only DEMs spend money, show me where repubs have reduced spending and lowered our deficit/debt over the past 20 years
Wasn't there a budget surplus back in 1999, 2000, and 2001?
Wasn't there a budget surplus back in 1999, 2000, and 2001?
eddyatwork: The problem with reducing spending is that inevitably something you like will be on the table.
Indeed. Everybody wants to cut stuff that doesn't help them.
Indeed. Everybody wants to cut stuff that doesn't help them.
sloth: Wasn't there a budget surplus back in 1999, 2000, and 2001?
posted on that yesterday. There was a surplus 1 year, which was nullified by other increases
posted on that yesterday. There was a surplus 1 year, which was nullified by other increases
baron muchhumpin: posted on that yesterday. There was a surplus 1 year, which was nullified by other increases
[image removed]
Well, wouldn't you count that as lowering the deficit?
[image removed]
Well, wouldn't you count that as lowering the deficit?
sloth: Well, wouldn't you count that as lowering the deficit?
SVR is that you?
and the "surplus" lasted for how long? 18 seconds?
and it wasn't from cuts as much as it was from rising tides on a roaring economy just before it imploded
SVR is that you?
and the "surplus" lasted for how long? 18 seconds?
and it wasn't from cuts as much as it was from rising tides on a roaring economy just before it imploded
baron muchhumpin: and it wasn't from cuts as much as it was from rising tides on a roaring economy just before it imploded
Well, this is true. there was also a bit of a peace dividend thing going on there with military base closings, but, yeah, most of it was just a rising economy. Of course, then you have to ask why the economy was doing so well...
Well, this is true. there was also a bit of a peace dividend thing going on there with military base closings, but, yeah, most of it was just a rising economy. Of course, then you have to ask why the economy was doing so well...
sloth: Well, this is true. there was also a bit of a peace dividend thing going on there with military base closings, but, yeah, most of it was just a rising economy. Of course, then you have to ask why the economy was doing so well...
unregulated capitalism
unregulated capitalism
so vote republican: Personally I would like to see the military cut by 50%+ and raise taxes. So where would you like me to compromise?
90%.
90%.
gradivus: 90%.
i agree we need to cut the military, don't know what percentage but i'd also like to see
Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous
get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc
i agree we need to cut the military, don't know what percentage but i'd also like to see
Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous
get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc
baron muchhumpin: the implication of your claim is that only DEMs spend money, show me where repubs have reduced spending and lowered our deficit/debt over the past 20 years
They just recently proposed spending cuts, does that work for you? I believe this article says that as well.
The democrats will not allow spending cuts in certain areas where it needs to happen. The same can be said for Republicans not wanting other couts in areas where it needs to happen.
Any military spending cuts would result in many job losses, but probably necessary.
Unlike people like you that feel the democrats are always on the correct side of things, I do not believe either sides is always on the good side.
They just recently proposed spending cuts, does that work for you? I believe this article says that as well.
The democrats will not allow spending cuts in certain areas where it needs to happen. The same can be said for Republicans not wanting other couts in areas where it needs to happen.
Any military spending cuts would result in many job losses, but probably necessary.
Unlike people like you that feel the democrats are always on the correct side of things, I do not believe either sides is always on the good side.
baron muchhumpin: i agree we need to cut the military, don't know what percentage but i'd also like to see
Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous
get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc
So you are okay with cutting thousands of jobs?
Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous
get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc
So you are okay with cutting thousands of jobs?
flashlv: So you are okay with cutting thousands of jobs?
of course! when have i ever said otherwise?
federal spending = deficit spending = my tax money
of course! when have i ever said otherwise?
federal spending = deficit spending = my tax money
flashlv:
Unlike people like you that feel the democrats are always on the correct side of things, I do not believe either sides is always on the good side.
poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
Unlike people like you that feel the democrats are always on the correct side of things, I do not believe either sides is always on the good side.
poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
baron muchhumpin: i agree we need to cut the military, don't know what percentage but i'd also like to see
Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous
get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc
We just need the marines, they do everything anyway.
Consolidation of the branches - there's so much overlap now as each branch is trying to grab more and more funding it's ridiculous
get us to 2 branches, consolidate weapons, suppliers, etc
We just need the marines, they do everything anyway.
baron muchhumpin: poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
To be fair, the "if you're not with us you're with the enemy" attitude is pretty prevalent here.
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
To be fair, the "if you're not with us you're with the enemy" attitude is pretty prevalent here.
baron muchhumpin: poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
i think the reason I do that is because many bn'ers believe that if you think one thing about a group or support something that happens once with a certain group, like police for me, that you agree or disagree with everything.
Once you guys stop generalizing, maybe I will too.
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
i think the reason I do that is because many bn'ers believe that if you think one thing about a group or support something that happens once with a certain group, like police for me, that you agree or disagree with everything.
Once you guys stop generalizing, maybe I will too.
flashlv: i think the reason I do that is because many bn'ers believe that if you think one thing about a group or support something that happens once with a certain group, like police for me, that you agree or disagree with everything.
Once you guys stop generalizing, maybe I will too.
a good first step would be taking responsibility for your own actions and not doing "but they do it too!!!" wahhhhh
Once you guys stop generalizing, maybe I will too.
a good first step would be taking responsibility for your own actions and not doing "but they do it too!!!" wahhhhh
baron muchhumpin: a good first step would be taking responsibility for your own actions and not doing "but they do it too!!!" wahhhhh
Yup, and I'll keep mocking your hypocrisy :/
Yup, and I'll keep mocking your hypocrisy :/
bunnythor: I would also increase the budgets for the NIH, NASA, the NSF, the DoE, the DoT, and the EPA by tenfold, but that's fiddling spare change and probably not worth bringing up at this point.
Can you give specifics for what that would cost?
Can you give specifics for what that would cost?
baron muchhumpin: poor flash, suffers the same dysfunction as phil
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
Nah, it's your constant defense of the Democrats that kind of points to your agreeing with them.
disagreeing with republicans does not mean i support DEMs, it simply means i disagree with republicans
Nah, it's your constant defense of the Democrats that kind of points to your agreeing with them.
so vote republican: Can you give specifics for what that would cost?
Costs minus expected returns such as new technologies developed, or just costs?
Costs minus expected returns such as new technologies developed, or just costs?
Did not read any of this, just wanted to say:
Republicans are giving conservatives a bad name. They've become as radical and activist as the Democrats they rail against.
Republicans are giving conservatives a bad name. They've become as radical and activist as the Democrats they rail against.
vic rattlehead: Did not read any of this, just wanted to say:
Republicans are giving conservatives a bad name. They've become as radical and activist as the Democrats they rail against.
Today's Democrats are hardly radical and activist, unfortunately. They're pretty moderate and limp.
Republicans are giving conservatives a bad name. They've become as radical and activist as the Democrats they rail against.
Today's Democrats are hardly radical and activist, unfortunately. They're pretty moderate and limp.
so vote republican: Nah, it's your constant defense of the Democrats that kind of points to your agreeing with them.
hmm.. i do occasionally defend them, but really i disagree with the 100% lopsided view that people like you and phil usually take
the world is gray, speaking in black and white only highlights your bias
hmm.. i do occasionally defend them, but really i disagree with the 100% lopsided view that people like you and phil usually take
the world is gray, speaking in black and white only highlights your bias
so vote republican: Can you give specifics for what that would cost?
Give cites to my hyperbole? Shirley, you jest!
Give cites to my hyperbole? Shirley, you jest!
fatsean: Today's Democrats are hardly radical and activist, unfortunately. They're pretty moderate and limp.
Compared to when? The Dems have rarely been the party of radical and activist activity - they've actually been the more politically conservative party more often than not.
Compared to when? The Dems have rarely been the party of radical and activist activity - they've actually been the more politically conservative party more often than not.
baron muchhumpin: hmm.. i do occasionally defend them, but really i disagree with the 100% lopsided view that people like you and phil usually take
the world is gray, speaking in black and white only highlights your bias
No, you occasionally pay lip service to saying both sides are bad while consistently attacking Republicans and defending and voting for Democrats.
I don't agree with phil either, so lumping us together isn't going to work.
the world is gray, speaking in black and white only highlights your bias
No, you occasionally pay lip service to saying both sides are bad while consistently attacking Republicans and defending and voting for Democrats.
I don't agree with phil either, so lumping us together isn't going to work.
surfnazi: Costs minus expected returns such as new technologies developed, or just costs?
Costs. You see, we're broke. We're more than broke, we're in debt over our eyeballs.
Talking about how much money you'll make on your "investment" is the same language the mortgage brokers used...
Costs. You see, we're broke. We're more than broke, we're in debt over our eyeballs.
Talking about how much money you'll make on your "investment" is the same language the mortgage brokers used...
sloth: Compared to when? The Dems have rarely been the party of radical and activist activity - they've actually been the more politically conservative party more often than not.
The New Deal and the Great Society were pretty activist, no?
The New Deal and the Great Society were pretty activist, no?
so vote republican: Costs. You see, we're broke. We're more than broke, we're in debt over our eyeballs.
Talking about how much money you'll make on your "investment" is the same language the mortgage brokers used...
No, not really. I'm not talking about buying a house. I'm talking about creating markets and products that people buy, which gets you money.
Talking about how much money you'll make on your "investment" is the same language the mortgage brokers used...
No, not really. I'm not talking about buying a house. I'm talking about creating markets and products that people buy, which gets you money.
And also robot sex maids.
sabine: The New Deal and the Great Society were pretty activist, no?
You really want to go back to decades old Democrat positions?
You really want to go back to decades old Democrat positions?
surfnazi: No, not really. I'm not talking about buying a house. I'm talking about creating markets and products that people buy, which gets you money.
People buy products and furnish homes. That's a market, and much money was made by the government off the boom.
People buy products and furnish homes. That's a market, and much money was made by the government off the boom.
sabine: The New Deal and the Great Society were pretty activist, no?
The New Deal was, for the most part, about the minimum change that could be made to hold the country together. The Great Society I'll grant you was a pretty radical agenda. Too bad so much of it went unfunded due to Vietnam.
The New Deal was, for the most part, about the minimum change that could be made to hold the country together. The Great Society I'll grant you was a pretty radical agenda. Too bad so much of it went unfunded due to Vietnam.
so vote republican: You really want to go back to decades old Democrat positions?
I was trying to back up "activist", not "paragons of virtue".
I was trying to back up "activist", not "paragons of virtue".
So, anyway, you went back to 1945 and found two cases for the Dems being the more radical and less conservative party. Now...segregation? The push to impose religion onto the public schools and courthouses? Welfare reform? Judicial reform?
so vote republican: People buy products and furnish homes. That's a market, and much money was made by the government off the boom.
Yes, thanks to government initiative lots of fuckin' money was made on it. Of course jackoffs went too far with it, but that is absolutely not a reason for the government not to encourage new technology.
Yes, thanks to government initiative lots of fuckin' money was made on it. Of course jackoffs went too far with it, but that is absolutely not a reason for the government not to encourage new technology.
sloth: Now...segregation? The push to impose religion onto the public schools and courthouses?
Is it fair to characterize both of those as more regional than partisan?
sloth: Welfare reform? Judicial reform?
Welfare reform was pushed by the Contract With America folks - just because Clinton signed it doesn't make it a Democratic initiative. Which judicial reform? FDR's court-packing attempt was pretty activist.
Is it fair to characterize both of those as more regional than partisan?
sloth: Welfare reform? Judicial reform?
Welfare reform was pushed by the Contract With America folks - just because Clinton signed it doesn't make it a Democratic initiative. Which judicial reform? FDR's court-packing attempt was pretty activist.
sabine: Is it fair to characterize both of those as more regional than partisan?
Most probably.
sabine: Welfare reform was pushed by the Contract With America folks - just because Clinton signed it doesn't make it a Democratic initiative.
I was counting it as Republican-initiated radicalism/progressivism.
sabine: Which judicial reform? FDR's court-packing attempt was pretty activist.
Three-strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.
Most probably.
sabine: Welfare reform was pushed by the Contract With America folks - just because Clinton signed it doesn't make it a Democratic initiative.
I was counting it as Republican-initiated radicalism/progressivism.
sabine: Which judicial reform? FDR's court-packing attempt was pretty activist.
Three-strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.
sloth: I was counting it as Republican-initiated radicalism/progressivism.
Gotcha. In that case, I guess I have to flip around and say that it's atavistic radicalism.
sloth: Three-strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.
Can't argue with that. Privatization probably qualifies too, be it Social Security or roads.
Gotcha. In that case, I guess I have to flip around and say that it's atavistic radicalism.
sloth: Three-strikes laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.
Can't argue with that. Privatization probably qualifies too, be it Social Security or roads.
sabine: Gotcha. In that case, I guess I have to flip around and say that it's atavistic radicalism.
Yep.
sabine: Can't argue with that. Privatization probably qualifies too, be it Social Security or roads.
Zackly. Radical proposals all. Though I'm not sure anyone has actually suggested a massive road privatization scheme - have they? Did this happen without me noticing?
Yep.
sabine: Can't argue with that. Privatization probably qualifies too, be it Social Security or roads.
Zackly. Radical proposals all. Though I'm not sure anyone has actually suggested a massive road privatization scheme - have they? Did this happen without me noticing?
sloth: I'm not sure anyone has actually suggested a massive road privatization scheme - have they?
"Massive" would be a wee overstatement, but part of I-90 outside Chicago (the Chicago Skyway) is now private, and IIRC Indiana and Ohio have similar plans in the works.
"Massive" would be a wee overstatement, but part of I-90 outside Chicago (the Chicago Skyway) is now private, and IIRC Indiana and Ohio have similar plans in the works.
sabine: "Massive" would be a wee overstatement, but part of I-90 outside Chicago (the Chicago Skyway) is now private, and IIRC Indiana and Ohio have similar plans in the works.
Mmkay. Strange. These are stretches of limited access highway with tolls?
Mmkay. Strange. These are stretches of limited access highway with tolls?
sloth: These are stretches of limited access highway with tolls?
Well, I guess a bridge would qualify as extremely "limited access". It's part of the interstate highway system, as is the Indiana Toll Road that it connects to, presumably they were both originally built with federal highway money, and now they're both leased to and operated by private companies.
Well, I guess a bridge would qualify as extremely "limited access". It's part of the interstate highway system, as is the Indiana Toll Road that it connects to, presumably they were both originally built with federal highway money, and now they're both leased to and operated by private companies.
sabine: Well, I guess a bridge would qualify as extremely "limited access". It's part of the interstate highway system, as is the Indiana Toll Road that it connects to, presumably they were both originally built with federal highway money, and now they're both leased to and operated by private companies.
Oh - the road itself hasn't been sold, just the operation of the tolls leased out?
Oh - the road itself hasn't been sold, just the operation of the tolls leased out?
sloth: Oh - the road itself hasn't been sold, just the operation of the tolls leased out?
It's a 99-year lease, so that seems like "sold" for most practical purposes, but yes. The private consortium gets the tolls, does the maintenance, and kicked a couple billion in cash to the city of Chicago.
It's a 99-year lease, so that seems like "sold" for most practical purposes, but yes. The private consortium gets the tolls, does the maintenance, and kicked a couple billion in cash to the city of Chicago.
sabine: It's a 99-year lease, so that seems like "sold" for most practical purposes, but yes. The private consortium gets the tolls, does the maintenance, and kicked a couple billion in cash to the city of Chicago.
Well...ok then.
Well...ok then.
sabine: It's a 99-year lease, so that seems like "sold" for most practical purposes, but yes. The private consortium gets the tolls, does the maintenance, and kicked a couple billion in cash to the city of Chicago.
On my mom's side there someone owns the land some hospital is on on a 99 yr lease. I don't see the point as they have nothing to do with it except owning it.
On my mom's side there someone owns the land some hospital is on on a 99 yr lease. I don't see the point as they have nothing to do with it except owning it.
surfnazi: On my mom's side there someone owns the land some hospital is on on a 99 yr lease. I don't see the point as they have nothing to do with it except owning it.
...and collecting the rent on it?
...and collecting the rent on it?
sloth: ...and collecting the rent on it?
Yeah. Why not sell? Why would the hospital go out of it's way to enrich some people that don't contribute to it in any way?
Yeah. Why not sell? Why would the hospital go out of it's way to enrich some people that don't contribute to it in any way?
surfnazi: Yeah. Why not sell? Why would the hospital go out of it's way to enrich some people that don't contribute to it in any way?
Maybe they couldn't afford to buy it outright at the time it was built? Or they didn't really want to own the land?
Maybe they couldn't afford to buy it outright at the time it was built? Or they didn't really want to own the land?
sloth: Maybe they couldn't afford to buy it outright at the time it was built? Or they didn't really want to own the land?
Or like every other money deal that ever happens here, people have to cheat and steal from everyone else because everyone's palms are covered in grease.
Or like every other money deal that ever happens here, people have to cheat and steal from everyone else because everyone's palms are covered in grease.
so vote republican: No, you occasionally pay lip service to saying both sides are bad while consistently attacking Republicans and defending and voting for Democrats.
I don't agree with phil either, so lumping us together isn't going to work.
as i've stated NUMEROUS times, I WILL NOT support republicans UNTIL THEY DROP THE SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT
until they stop getting in the way of needed PROGRESS I will not vote for them, PERIOD
I don't agree with phil either, so lumping us together isn't going to work.
as i've stated NUMEROUS times, I WILL NOT support republicans UNTIL THEY DROP THE SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT
until they stop getting in the way of needed PROGRESS I will not vote for them, PERIOD
baron muchhumpin: as i've stated NUMEROUS times, I WILL NOT support republicans UNTIL THEY DROP THE SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT
until they stop getting in the way of needed PROGRESS I will not vote for them, PERIOD
Okay me too. And I won't support the Democrats until the drop the spending us into oblivion.
But feeling good about voting against the SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT while our budget destroys the future of any possible SOCIAL AGENDA doesn't seem particularly forward thinking to me.
until they stop getting in the way of needed PROGRESS I will not vote for them, PERIOD
Okay me too. And I won't support the Democrats until the drop the spending us into oblivion.
But feeling good about voting against the SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT while our budget destroys the future of any possible SOCIAL AGENDA doesn't seem particularly forward thinking to me.
so vote republican: Okay me too. And I won't support the Democrats until the drop the spending us into oblivion.
But feeling good about voting against the SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT while our budget destroys the future of any possible SOCIAL AGENDA doesn't seem particularly forward thinking to me.
the fact that you blame the DEMs for the out of control spending is laughable
both parties, also as i've said numerous times, have ZERO interest in reducing our rate of spending
saying one side is better or worse just shows your stripes
But feeling good about voting against the SOCIAL AGENDA BULLSHIT while our budget destroys the future of any possible SOCIAL AGENDA doesn't seem particularly forward thinking to me.
the fact that you blame the DEMs for the out of control spending is laughable
both parties, also as i've said numerous times, have ZERO interest in reducing our rate of spending
saying one side is better or worse just shows your stripes
baron muchhumpin: the fact that you blame the DEMs for the out of control spending is laughable
both parties, also as i've said numerous times, have ZERO interest in reducing our rate of spending
saying one side is better or worse just shows your stripes
I didn't say I blamed just them the Repubs are responsible too. Here, in fact, let me quote you this post I made as the very first post in this thread:
so vote republican: Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.
So yes, when I said "Okay, me too." I was agreeing with you not to vote for the Repubs. I was then adding in why I wouldn't vote for the Dems.
Nice try though!
both parties, also as i've said numerous times, have ZERO interest in reducing our rate of spending
saying one side is better or worse just shows your stripes
I didn't say I blamed just them the Repubs are responsible too. Here, in fact, let me quote you this post I made as the very first post in this thread:
so vote republican: Neither side will cut the budget. We will run deficits until others will no longer buy our debt.
So yes, when I said "Okay, me too." I was agreeing with you not to vote for the Repubs. I was then adding in why I wouldn't vote for the Dems.
Nice try though!
so vote republican: And I won't support the Democrats until the drop the spending us into oblivion.
.
and you also said that, so yaaaaa
.
and you also said that, so yaaaaa
baron muchhumpin: and you also said that, so yaaaaa
Yes. So I, in fact, won't support either side.
Now, as you've pointed out many times, not supporting one side doesn't mean I support the other, right?
Right?
Now, in my opinion, voting for one side, does mean supporting them.
Yes. So I, in fact, won't support either side.
Now, as you've pointed out many times, not supporting one side doesn't mean I support the other, right?
Right?
Now, in my opinion, voting for one side, does mean supporting them.
so vote republican: Yes. So I, in fact, won't support either side.
Now, as you've pointed out many times, not supporting one side doesn't mean I support the other, right?
Right?
Now, in my opinion, voting for one side, does mean supporting them.
your wording of your other post implies that the republicans ARE interested in fiscal responsibility
which isn't true
Now, as you've pointed out many times, not supporting one side doesn't mean I support the other, right?
Right?
Now, in my opinion, voting for one side, does mean supporting them.
your wording of your other post implies that the republicans ARE interested in fiscal responsibility
which isn't true
baron muchhumpin: your wording of your other post implies that the republicans ARE interested in fiscal responsibility
which isn't true
No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort, sorry. And if it was confusing you can read my earlier post. Which clearly and completely states my position before you try to pretend I'm implying something different.
Interpreting it as such simply reveals your internal bias.
which isn't true
No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort, sorry. And if it was confusing you can read my earlier post. Which clearly and completely states my position before you try to pretend I'm implying something different.
Interpreting it as such simply reveals your internal bias.
so vote republican: No, it doesn't imply anything of the sort, sorry. And if it was confusing you can read my earlier post. Which clearly and completely states my position before you try to pretend I'm implying something different.
Interpreting it as such simply reveals your internal bias.
yes, i have a bias against republicans today. Your original post is accurate but you do have a habit of walking a line against DEMs so I will read more into your posts than maybe they deserve
Interpreting it as such simply reveals your internal bias.
yes, i have a bias against republicans today. Your original post is accurate but you do have a habit of walking a line against DEMs so I will read more into your posts than maybe they deserve
baron muchhumpin: yes, i have a bias against republicans today. Your original post is accurate but you do have a habit of walking a line against DEMs so I will read more into your posts than maybe they deserve
I walk a line against Dem and Rep voter. As a Dem voter you would see that. In addition bN leans heavily Dem.
I walk a line against Dem and Rep voter. As a Dem voter you would see that. In addition bN leans heavily Dem.
so vote republican: As a Dem voter anti-republican voter you would see that.
Sure.
Currently I'm planning on voting FOR Obama, but only because I know Romney sucks eggs for a living
I'm also planning on voting for Scott Brown (R) in my state as he seems fairly moderate and not a wacko lib like what's her name
Sure.
Currently I'm planning on voting FOR Obama, but only because I know Romney sucks eggs for a living
I'm also planning on voting for Scott Brown (R) in my state as he seems fairly moderate and not a wacko lib like what's her name
baron muchhumpin: Sure.
Currently I'm planning on voting FOR Obama, but only because I know Romney sucks eggs for a living
I'm also planning on voting for Scott Brown (R) in my state as he seems fairly moderate and not a wacko lib like what's her name
Romney and Obama would have virtually identical policies.
Your policies support Republicans as much as Democrats in my opinion. They are one party.
Currently I'm planning on voting FOR Obama, but only because I know Romney sucks eggs for a living
I'm also planning on voting for Scott Brown (R) in my state as he seems fairly moderate and not a wacko lib like what's her name
Romney and Obama would have virtually identical policies.
Your policies support Republicans as much as Democrats in my opinion. They are one party.
so vote republican: Romney and Obama would have virtually identical policies.
Your policies support Republicans as much as Democrats in my opinion. They are one party.
except DEMs don't pledge to unfund Title X, pass legislation restricting women's access to planned parenthood, or veto gay marriage bills
Your policies support Republicans as much as Democrats in my opinion. They are one party.
except DEMs don't pledge to unfund Title X, pass legislation restricting women's access to planned parenthood, or veto gay marriage bills
baron muchhumpin: except DEMs don't pledge to unfund Title X, pass legislation restricting women's access to planned parenthood, or veto gay marriage bills
Parties can have internal differences, and in fact some Republicans don't support those things.
Parties can have internal differences, and in fact some Republicans don't support those things.
so vote republican: Parties can have internal differences, and in fact some Republicans don't support those things.
anecdotal
the party line is to support those things
anecdotal
the party line is to support those things
baron muchhumpin: except DEMs don't pledge to unfund Title X, pass legislation restricting women's access to planned parenthood, or veto gay marriage bills
I mean, you're voting for a Republican apparently. Do you support those things?
I mean, you're voting for a Republican apparently. Do you support those things?
so vote republican: I mean, you're voting for a Republican apparently. Do you support those things?
no, i don't. And Brown hasn't been speaking about those things either, he's just done his job which is why i'm willing to vote for him
no, i don't. And Brown hasn't been speaking about those things either, he's just done his job which is why i'm willing to vote for him
baron muchhumpin: no, i don't. And Brown hasn't been speaking about those things either, he's just done his job which is why i'm willing to vote for him
I have similar feelings towards voting for any Republican. They are all corrupt, they are all the same party. The differences are minor in the scheme of the long term damage they do the nation.
I have similar feelings towards voting for any Republican. They are all corrupt, they are all the same party. The differences are minor in the scheme of the long term damage they do the nation.
so vote republican: some Republicans don't support those things
Would it be asking too much to have one of them run for president? I think all the Republican presidential candidates this cycle held all those positions.
Would it be asking too much to have one of them run for president? I think all the Republican presidential candidates this cycle held all those positions.
sabine: Would it be asking too much to have one of them run for president? I think all the Republican presidential candidates this cycle held all those positions.
Gary Johnson? I don't know about Ron Paul.
Gary Johnson? I don't know about Ron Paul.
sabine: Would it be asking too much to have one of them run for president? I think all the Republican presidential candidates this cycle held all those positions.
The point is, that those things won't mean anything when the budget falls apart to do anything about them. It's a smokescreen.
The point is, that those things won't mean anything when the budget falls apart to do anything about them. It's a smokescreen.
so vote republican: Gary Johnson? I don't know about Ron Paul.
Too bad Johnson got forced out of the tent. RON PAUL was the one running ads blasting Santorum for voting for Title X funding, and co-sponsored a bill that would deny all Title X funding to any entity *cough Planned Parenthood cough* that provides abortions.
Too bad Johnson got forced out of the tent. RON PAUL was the one running ads blasting Santorum for voting for Title X funding, and co-sponsored a bill that would deny all Title X funding to any entity *cough Planned Parenthood cough* that provides abortions.
sabine: Too bad Johnson got forced out of the tent. RON PAUL was the one running ads blasting Santorum for voting for Title X funding, and co-sponsored a bill that would deny all Title X funding to any entity *cough Planned Parenthood cough* that provides abortions.
So wait, RON PAUL attacked RICK SANTORUM for something that Republicans don't do?
So wait, RON PAUL attacked RICK SANTORUM for something that Republicans don't do?
so vote republican: So wait, RON PAUL attacked RICK SANTORUM for something that Republicans don't do?
It's not a very fair attack.
It's not a very fair attack.
sabine: It's not a very fair attack.
RON PAUL is a disappointment. He talks a good game but doesn't followup. A lot like BARACK OBAMA.
RON PAUL is a disappointment. He talks a good game but doesn't followup. A lot like BARACK OBAMA.
so vote republican: A lot like BARACK OBAMA.
My main point is that I often hear tales of these Republicans that aren't beholden to the people who effectively want a Christian version of the Taliban, yet even the country-club fiscons like Romney seem to feel the need to at least pretend like they agree. I would really like to see the Republican party say "all y'all theocrat wannabes and bedsheet hood wearers can go hang out in the Constitution Party, because you're dragging us down. We want to focus strictly on sound fiscal management".
My main point is that I often hear tales of these Republicans that aren't beholden to the people who effectively want a Christian version of the Taliban, yet even the country-club fiscons like Romney seem to feel the need to at least pretend like they agree. I would really like to see the Republican party say "all y'all theocrat wannabes and bedsheet hood wearers can go hang out in the Constitution Party, because you're dragging us down. We want to focus strictly on sound fiscal management".
sabine: My main point is that I often hear tales of these Republicans that aren't beholden to the people who effectively want a Christian version of the Taliban, yet even the country-club fiscons like Romney seem to feel the need to at least pretend like they agree. I would really like to see the Republican party say "all y'all theocrat wannabes and bedsheet hood wearers can go hang out in the Constitution Party, because you're dragging us down. We want to focus strictly on sound fiscal management".
Yes, and we hear tales of Democrats that aren't beholden to banks, Wall Street, and the MIC.
Suckers keep voting for both, so I guess the stories work.
Yes, and we hear tales of Democrats that aren't beholden to banks, Wall Street, and the MIC.
Suckers keep voting for both, so I guess the stories work.
so vote republican: Yes, and we hear tales of Democrats that aren't beholden to banks, Wall Street, and the MIC.
Hollywood or organized labor I would buy, but those three examples don't seem to me particularly strong.
Hollywood or organized labor I would buy, but those three examples don't seem to me particularly strong.
sabine: Hollywood or organized labor I would buy, but those three examples don't seem to me particularly strong.
True, that's why the Democratic Presidential candidates have all proposed plans reducing the TBTF banks, kicking Geithner out of the Treasury, and slashing the DOD budget.
True, that's why the Democratic Presidential candidates have all proposed plans reducing the TBTF banks, kicking Geithner out of the Treasury, and slashing the DOD budget.
so vote republican: True, that's why the Democratic Presidential candidates have all proposed plans reducing the TBTF banks, kicking Geithner out of the Treasury, and slashing the DOD budget.
Here's a list of the most partisan "industries". Banks are actually on the "R" list (although that doesn't count investment banks, who are pretty bipartisan and float around a fair amount). Defense skews R (but is comparatively tiny).
The D stuff is mostly labor unions, lawyers and Hollywood.
Here's a list of the most partisan "industries". Banks are actually on the "R" list (although that doesn't count investment banks, who are pretty bipartisan and float around a fair amount). Defense skews R (but is comparatively tiny).
The D stuff is mostly labor unions, lawyers and Hollywood.
sabine: Here's a list of the most partisan "industries". Banks are actually on the "R" list (although that doesn't count investment banks, who are pretty bipartisan and float around a fair amount). Defense skews R (but is comparatively tiny).
The D stuff is mostly labor unions, lawyers and Hollywood.
Well, let's ignore investment banks and the RIAA. Good idea.
The D stuff is mostly labor unions, lawyers and Hollywood.
Well, let's ignore investment banks and the RIAA. Good idea.
so vote republican: Well, let's ignore investment banks and the RIAA. Good idea.
I consider the RIAA part of "Hollywood". Investment banks seem to me equal opportunity politician purchasers.
I consider the RIAA part of "Hollywood". Investment banks seem to me equal opportunity politician purchasers.
sabine: I consider the RIAA part of "Hollywood". Investment banks seem to me equal opportunity politician purchasers.
All a very clever way of addressing absolutely none of what I said in an extremely disingenuous way.
All a very clever way of addressing absolutely none of what I said in an extremely disingenuous way.
so vote republican: All a very clever way of addressing absolutely none of what I said in an extremely disingenuous way.
Sorry it sounded that way.
Yes, I agree with you that Democrats are beholden to certain special interests. I just thought the specific ones you chose weren't particularly good examples, because commercial banks and defense give more to Republicans, and investment banks are a wash.
Sorry it sounded that way.
Yes, I agree with you that Democrats are beholden to certain special interests. I just thought the specific ones you chose weren't particularly good examples, because commercial banks and defense give more to Republicans, and investment banks are a wash.
sabine: Sorry it sounded that way.
Yes, I agree with you that Democrats are beholden to certain special interests. I just thought the specific ones you chose weren't particularly good examples, because commercial banks and defense give more to Republicans, and investment banks are a wash.
Except you were responding to a similar post. Your partisanship is sad.
Yes, I agree with you that Democrats are beholden to certain special interests. I just thought the specific ones you chose weren't particularly good examples, because commercial banks and defense give more to Republicans, and investment banks are a wash.
Except you were responding to a similar post. Your partisanship is sad.
so vote republican: Your partisanship is sad.
How is suggesting that X, Y, and Z are stronger evidence for your case than A, B, and C are partisan?
How is suggesting that X, Y, and Z are stronger evidence for your case than A, B, and C are partisan?
sabine: How is suggesting that X, Y, and Z are stronger evidence for your case than A, B, and C are partisan?
Because X, Y, and Z are "Democrats are better at balancing the budget and protecting our civil liberties" which is scant at best and insulting at worst.
Sad.
But really, enjoy your second Democratic administration. I am sure all your dreams will come true.
Because X, Y, and Z are "Democrats are better at balancing the budget and protecting our civil liberties" which is scant at best and insulting at worst.
Sad.
But really, enjoy your second Democratic administration. I am sure all your dreams will come true.
someone who may or may not be So vote Democratic
2012-04-14 02:22:49.0
login to vote
score 1
so vote republican: All a very clever way of addressing absolutely none of what I said in an extremely disingenuous way.
How dare someone else do that as that's your job.
How dare someone else do that as that's your job.
so vote republican: Because X, Y, and Z are "Democrats are better at balancing the budget and protecting our civil liberties" which is scant at best and insulting at worst.
Umm, no, X, Y and Z were "labor unions, lawyers, and movie studios" as opposed to "commercial banks, investment banks, and defense contractors".
Umm, no, X, Y and Z were "labor unions, lawyers, and movie studios" as opposed to "commercial banks, investment banks, and defense contractors".
sabine: Umm, no, X, Y and Z were "labor unions, lawyers, and movie studios" as opposed to "commercial banks, investment banks, and defense contractors".
One word: Tim Geithner.
One word: Tim Geithner.
so vote republican: One word: Tim Geithner.
That is a very problematic word...
And, I think GS is still putting a lot of money into the President's reelection bid.
That is a very problematic word...
And, I think GS is still putting a lot of money into the President's reelection bid.
so vote republican: Can you give specifics for what that would cost?
Last time I looked you could double NIH with 2% of the military budget.
Last time I looked you could double NIH with 2% of the military budget.
xomber: Last time I looked you could double NIH with 2% of the military budget.
And you can kill 100% of the military budget and still not close the deficit...
And you can kill 100% of the military budget and still not close the deficit...
so vote republican: And you can kill 100% of the military budget and still not close the deficit...
But the price of cheese in China still is reasonable.
But the price of cheese in China still is reasonable.
xomber: But the price of cheese in China still is reasonable.
The deficit is quite relevant in my opinion, though I agree it is irrelevant to our leaders.
The deficit is quite relevant in my opinion, though I agree it is irrelevant to our leaders.
so vote republican: One word: Tim Geithner.
Three equally important words: Gramm/Leach/Bliley. The political influence of the finance industry is bipartisan.
Three equally important words: Gramm/Leach/Bliley. The political influence of the finance industry is bipartisan.
sabine: Three equally important words: Gramm/Leach/Bliley. The political influence of the finance industry is bipartisan.
And.... I never said it wasn't.
And.... I never said it wasn't.
sabine: You called me partisan for saying that.
Nope. I called believing that there was a significant difference in the parties with respect to it partisan.
If you don't think the difference was significant I apologize for my incorrect assumption.
Nope. I called believing that there was a significant difference in the parties with respect to it partisan.
If you don't think the difference was significant I apologize for my incorrect assumption.
If you logged in, you could post here.