View Full Version : ........Compromise........
We've had the issue of compromise brought up in a number of threads around here.
Some of us knew what the press and the D's thought about compromise.
And now the Prez puts it out in the open.
"Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts"
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/127983-obama-calls-for-compromise-wont-budge-on-tax-cuts
"Days after Democrats received a self-described "shellacking" at the polls, President Obama called for an end to campaigning and an embrace of compromise.
But he signaled no willingness to bend on the first challenge likely to face him from a Republican House as he advocated the permanent extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year despite the GOP's resolve to extend the tax cuts for all income brackets.............."
So his position is $250,000 and the Republicans is everybody. Compromise? Why $250,000 of course. It will be that way on every issue folks. It's going to be a long two years.
And of course the press will blame the R's for not being willing to "Compromise".
And of course the press will blame the R's for not being willing to "Compromise".
Pete, Sir...Very well surmised IMHO! :munchin
Am waiting for the rebuttle, that we know is comming...
Holly
"Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts"
This is actually moderately encouraging since Barry lies like a rug.
We'll see...
Ambush Master
11-07-2010, 15:54
How can they even REMOTELY begin to think that the Rs need to Compromise, when they wouldn't even allow any Rs to be involved in the Healthcare or any other substantial Legislation for the past 2 years?!?!?!
Later
Martin
The Reaper
11-07-2010, 16:03
"I won, get over it."
Secret meetings, excluding one entire party from the writing of 2000+ page bills.
Calling the elected opposition, "the enemies".
Pursuit of a socialist, union driven agenda.
Arrogance, public posturing, and hubris beyond belief.
Prepare the bills, consider Dim proposals, modify as necessary, and pass the things. Defund Obamacare and any other lunacy which has already been passed. If the POTUS wants to veto a tax cut bill, or a real jobs bill, or a military funding bill, or improved health care legislation, of efforts to balance the budget, or a cap gains tax cut, let him do so and go on the record opposing them.
Compromise? Not on principles.
TR
"I won, get over it."
Secret meetings, excluding one entire party from the writing of 2000+ page bills.
Calling the elected opposition, "the enemies".
Pursuit of a socialist, union driven agenda.
Arrogance, public posturing, and hubris beyond belief.
Prepare the bills, consider Dim proposals, modify as necessary, and pass the things. Defund Obamacare and any other lunacy which has already been passed. If the POTUS wants to veto a tax cut bill, or a real jobs bill, or a military funding bill, or improved health care legislation, of efforts to balance the budget, or a cap gains tax cut, let him do so and go on the record opposing them.
Compromise? Not on principles.
TR
Incredibly well said, TR Sir!:munchin
Holly
Pelosi move is a sign that Democrats intend to fight the GOP, not cut deals
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/127977-pelosi-move-is-a-sign-that-dems-intend-to-fight-not-cut-deals
"........But making deals with the newly empowered Republicans isn't high on the priority list of liberal Democrats, who suddenly find themselves with a much louder voice following Tuesday's decimation of the conservative-leaning Blue Dogs, who tended to gravitate toward Hoyer.
Pelosi — a master vote-counter — and her liberal allies spent the latter part of the week taking the temperature of the Democratic caucus on questions of leadership. Her decision to throw her name into the ring is indication enough that the responses were favorable..........."
The Reaper
11-07-2010, 17:41
Pelosi move is a sign that Democrats intend to fight the GOP, not cut deals
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/127977-pelosi-move-is-a-sign-that-dems-intend-to-fight-not-cut-deals
"........But making deals with the newly empowered Republicans isn't high on the priority list of liberal Democrats, who suddenly find themselves with a much louder voice following Tuesday's decimation of the conservative-leaning Blue Dogs, who tended to gravitate toward Hoyer.
Pelosi — a master vote-counter — and her liberal allies spent the latter part of the week taking the temperature of the Democratic caucus on questions of leadership. Her decision to throw her name into the ring is indication enough that the responses were favorable..........."
What is she going to do with the 100 or so lib Dims who support her socialist agenda?
They should lose at least 50-60 Dim votes who either agree with the Repubs, or who have seen what happens to those who defy the will of their constituents.
I see no reason that the Repubs cannot pass pretty much any legislation they want. The compromise will come when the House and the Senate conference occurs on the bills, or the POTUS vetos them.
Till then, Nancy's opinion and desires are irrelevant.
Plus she loses the free AF plane to haul her entourage home to San Francisco every weekend. Maybe she can get her broom fitted with a passenger extension.
TR
Ret10Echo
11-07-2010, 18:32
What is she going to do with the 100 or so lib Dims who support her socialist agenda?
TR
Lie, lie lie, bend the ear of the uber-liberal media, commit subterfuge and make accusations, create general mayhem.
The next two years will be spent using every ounce of energy they have to make the incoming House members look bad in preparation for the next round of elections.
My prognosis is that it gets worse. That screeching voice will be on every news show from here to forever. If she is elected as the minority leader, then that will be proof positive that there will be no attempts to compromise.
I believe that the Legislative Branch will stagnate and spend their time degrading one another. Meanwhile expect the rate of Executive Orders to increase along with legislation by the Judicial Branch.
Pelosi will push too far. Independents are fed up with her. I think it is going to backfire on them. Again.
cetheridge
11-07-2010, 21:44
I agree with all of the above.
My intention is not to sound vindictive, but my hope for the sake of our country is that within the next two years Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Kerry, Lewis, et.al., will follow the path of Kennedy and Byrd.
blacksmoke
11-08-2010, 09:44
On 60 Minutes last night, Obama blamed the Repub's for not supporting and pushing away the healthcare bills sent to them. He claimed he has been "reaching out" for the past two years. The interviewer asked him if his campaign promises were too idealistic, Obama started to stutter, and an aswer was provided for him. Interesting interview.
[H]ubris beyond belief. TR--
With respect, I disagree. IIRC, a prerequisite of hubris is a capacity for greatness. The current president has demonstrated--time and again--that he's all too ordinary.
In regards to his position on 'compromise,' I think the president laid out his plan during his last press conference on 3 November 2010.*Q Thank you, Mr. President. After your election two years ago, when you met with Republicans you said that, in discussing what policies might go forward, that elections have consequences, and that you pointed out that you had won. I wonder what consequences you think this election should have then, in terms of your policies. Are there areas that you’re willing -- can you name today areas that you would be willing to compromise on that you might not have been willing to compromise on in the past?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I’ve been willing to compromise in the past and I'm going to be willing to compromise going forward on a whole range of issues. Let me give you an example -- the issue of energy that I just mentioned.
I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year. And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after. But that doesn't mean there isn't agreement that we should have a better energy policy. And so let’s find those areas where we can agree.
We’ve got, I think, broad agreement that we’ve got terrific natural gas resources in this country. Are we doing everything we can to develop those? There's a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that we don't fall behind other countries. Are there things that we can do to encourage that? And there's already been bipartisan interest on those issues.
There's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. Is that an area where we can move forward?
We were able, over the last two years, to increase for the first time in 30 years fuel-efficiency standards on cars and trucks. We didn’t even need legislation. We just needed the cooperation of automakers and autoworkers and investors and other shareholders. And that's going to move us forward in a serious way.
So I think when it comes to something like energy, what we’re probably going to have to do is say here are some areas where there's just too much disagreement between Democrats and Republicans, we can’t get this done right now, but let’s not wait. Let’s go ahead and start making some progress on the things that we do agree on, and we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we don’t.My take is that he plans to get legislation passed where he can and not commit himself if he doesn't think he can win.
This ostensibly pragmatic approach will allow him to say in 2012 that he made compromises with his political opponents, is 'making progress' on the tough choices, and will make those tougher decisions in his second term. It will be interesting to see if his political base will be satisfied with this approach or if some will point out that he's planning on doing what he said he wouldn't: kick the can down the hall.
________________________________________________
* Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/03/press-conference-president).
"Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts"
FWIW if you grew tired of watching the Cowboys ineptitude last night and switched over to 60 Minutes, Barry has already come around to leave himself some wiggle room on extending the Bush tax cuts.
When asked about a specific proposition from a Republican Senator on a way to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, his reply went something like " When someone proposes a specific plan like that, if we can figure out how to pay for it, it is a discussion I am open to."
Translation: "My party just got shelled in the midterms, the Republicans can at least propose sensible legislation going forward that I will have to go on record against, and that Hillary creature is just waiting for an opening, maybe I should move to the center a bit."
And a minor rant, No leader especially a POTUS in a recession with troops in harms way should ever admit to being discouraged on national TV. He is the Mr. Blutarsky of leadership GPA, 0.0...
... if we can figure out how to pay for it, it is a discussion I am open to..........
And that buys into the libs talking points. How do you pay for a tax cut? Is a tax cut an all or nothing "thing". 1 - 1 = 0?
Or does a "tax cut for the rich" keep money in small business hands allowing them to generate business, add jobs, stimulate the economy and producing much more tax revenue.
A tax cut works every time it's tried. The only problem is congress who can always spend it faster than it comes in.
How do you "pay" for an $1,800 tax refund going to someone who didn't pay any taxes? When you get down to zero it should stop.
Masochist
11-08-2010, 11:23
And a minor rant, No leader especially a POTUS in a recession with troops in harms way should ever admit to being discouraged on national TV. He is the Mr. Blutarsky of leadership GPA, 0.0...
Much agreed. Show you're discouraged and your troops will follow.
However, I wouldn't compare the POTUS to Bluto. That man gave some amazingly passionate "go charge that hill" type speeches, even if they weren't factually accurate.
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
GratefulCitizen
11-08-2010, 11:56
"Pelosi — a master vote-counter — and her liberal allies spent the latter part of the week taking the temperature of the Democratic caucus on questions of leadership. Her decision to throw her name into the ring is indication enough that the responses were favorable..........."
Guess what type of thermometer they used.
**********
**********
RE: tax cuts
Not sure that tax cuts alone are a good idea.
Tax cuts + low interest rates = bubbles
Nobody will like it, but we need: tax cuts + high interest rates.
Also, whatever the business-affecting regulations are, they need to be clear and not subject to rapid/arbitrary change.
The federal government needs to worry less about tinkering with the overall economy and get their own fiscal house in order.
Non-defense discretionary spending cuts is where the focus should be.
Politicians recoil at this notion because discretionary spending is where most of their power resides.
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvtOEHKJsI&feature=player_embedded#
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Nightfall
11-08-2010, 14:05
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvtOEHKJsI&feature=player_embedded#
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Wow. Holy cow. Wow. They took my friend away in a funny white coat for sating things like that... Meds. Lots of Meds...
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvtOEHKJsI&feature=player_embedded#
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
I saw the "Black Swan" Saturday night.
While standing in the dark around a fire at an undisclosed location a number of associates and I were passing, ah, hem, bottles around a circle. After departing for a few minutes to check something I returned to the circle. As the new (well, it might have been around twice or so) bottle was handed to me I asked what it was. The passer replied "Black Swan something or other." As everyone else broke out laughing I looked at the bottle. It had a Black Bird on it to be sure, but it was not a Swan. Mighty smooth with a touch of honey.
ZonieDiver
11-08-2010, 14:27
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvtOEHKJsI&feature=player_embedded#
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Crap! I'm sold. I've ordered the whole series and moving into her doghouse out back as soon as I retire!:D
spherojon
11-08-2010, 14:49
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvtOEHKJsI&feature=player_embedded#
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
I'm prepared with my tin foil hat and lazer gun.
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for...
I don't want to be "captured by the rat bastards in the milky way and turned into meat" either (go Colleen!)....are you QPs going to prevent Operation Black Swan, or what? :D:D
We would certainly appreciate it. :p
Dozer523
11-08-2010, 17:08
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for... I'll believe it after I see the pictures her husband took.
No, DON'T send me the link.
Compromise is the least of our worries - we've got Operation Black Swan to prepare for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvtOEHKJsI&feature=player_embedded#
She is discriminating against the multitudes of indigenous peoples who are peacefully trying to re-establish reptilian rule, and if she’s not careful, she’ll need bill hillar to prevent her from being “taken” - Vril are real… :eek: :D
Here is where the compromise will be heading in the next couple of years: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/10/fraser-seitel-nancy-pelosi-speaker-house-congress-randy-moss-diane-sawyer/
Christmas came early for the Republican Party: Nancy Pelosi announced she intended to remain the leader of House Democrats.
Not since discarded Minnesota Viking receiver Randy Moss berated the mom and pop providers of a post-practice meal for serving food “not fit for my dog” – has there been a more self-centered, team-sacrificing decision.
The point is that Pelosi’s ardent liberalism – and that of her colleagues, such as Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, who will help reelect her minority leader – is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of voting Americans. (That’s what the midterms were all about. Hello!).
Political reality setting in for Zero? ( after midterm smackdown, move to center)
Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax cuts
By
Associated Press
Posted: 12/06/2010 07:53:21 PM PST
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans have reached a tentative accord on a sweeping economic package that would preserve Bush administration tax breaks for families at all income levels for two years, extend emergency jobless benefits through 2011 and cut payroll taxes by 2 percentage points for every American worker through the end of next year.
The scope of the agreement, announced by the White House on Monday, was far broader than lawmakers in either party had been expecting.
The deal would extend a college tuition tax credit and other breaks for middle-class families that were due to expire Dec. 31. And it would revive the inheritance tax after a yearlong lapse, imposing a 35 percent rate on estates worth more than $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples.
The package would add more than $700 billion to the rising national debt, said congressional sources who were briefed on the package. But with the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent, the White House was focused on winning a compromise that could boost the fragile recovery while preventing the economic damage that could result from letting the expiring tax breaks hit paychecks next month.
The payroll tax holiday, in particular, is striking for its universal application. Unlike most tax breaks, it would be available to taxpayers at every income level, letting consumers keep an extra $120 billion in their pockets next year. For a couple making $70,000 a year, the holiday would provide a tax savings of $1,400. Still, that victory came at the cost of a painful concession: Obama campaigned on a promise to repeal the Bush-era tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 2 percent of U.S. households, a stance that many Democrats were unwilling to surrender. But with Republicans insistent on preserving all the cuts, Obama acknowledged that abandoning that long-held Democratic position was the price of preventing a political stalemate that would have caused taxes to rise across the board.
"This would be a chilling prospect for the American people," Obama said during a White House news conference. "I am not willing to let that happen." Obama also delivered a sharp rebuke to Democrats who said they would rather let tax rates rise for everyone than continue perks for millionaires.
"I am not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington," Obama said. "The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories."
Republicans embraced the agreement. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who took a lead role in talks with the White House, expressed appreciation for "the determined efforts of the president and vice president in working with Republicans on a bipartisan plan to prevent a tax hike on any American and in creating incentives for economic growth."
"I am optimistic that Democrats in Congress will show the same openness to preventing tax hikes the administration has already shown," McConnell said in a statement.
That optimism may prove to be misplaced. The agreement has yet to win the support of Democratic leaders in either chamber, and senior aides said the White House will need significant Republican support to push the package through Congress. Democrats said the lenient terms of the estate tax agreement are likely to prove particularly problematic, because they would layer another big tax break for the nation's wealthiest families on top of the perks they already get from lower tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends.
"The House Democrats have not signed off on any deal," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who has served as the lead negotiator for House Democrats in talks between the White House and bipartisan representatives from both chambers. Van Hollen said House leaders would review the package and discuss it with their rank-and-file in a meeting tonight.
Vice President Joe Biden made plans to travel to Capitol Hill today to pitch the plan to Senate Democrats, who were largely silent after the announcement. Over the weekend, the Senate failed to approve two measures that would have extended the Bush cuts only on family income less than $250,000 a year and $1 million a year, respectively.
The deal represents an attempt by the White House to reframe the debate over tax cuts as a broader effort to assist the economic recovery at a time when lawmakers have been reluctant to approve additional stimulus. Although economists have judged Obama's 2009 stimulus package to have successfully prevented a descent into a depression, the effort has been politically unpopular amid concerns about expanding government and deficit spending.
The bipartisan framework announced Monday seeks to reach the same goals through more straightforward means.
Instead of a host of business tax breaks aimed at encouraging companies to part with the cash reserves they have accumulated, the deal calls for a single perk that would permit companies of all sizes to write off the entire value of their capital investments next year. A senior White House official called the proposal "the largest temporary business tax incentive in history," worth an estimated $150 billion to businesses next year.
Instead of Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax credit worth up to $800 to middle-class families -- a provision its beneficiaries barely noticed -- the deal calls for a simple 2 percentage-point reduction in the 6.2 percent payroll tax that workers pay on income up to $106,800 to finance Social Security.
The loss to the Social Security trust fund would be covered by general revenue.
The deal also seeks to extend a number of tax breaks created by the stimulus package that the administration views as successful. For example, an expanded college tuition deduction that provides additional support to about 8 million students would remain on the books.
One major inducement in the package for Democrats is a 13-month extension of emergency jobless benefits, which provide income support for up to 99 weeks to workers who have exhausted state benefits. The latest round of benefits expired last week, and 2 million jobless workers are due to be cut off by the end of the year.
Democrats have struggled for more than a year to keep benefits flowing, but they were unhappy with the terms of the deal as announced by Obama.
Republicans "have successfully used the fragile economic security of our middle class and the hardship of millions of jobless Americans as bargaining chips to secure tax breaks for the very wealthiest among us," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
BREAKING DOWN THE TAX CUTS
Highlights of the proposed bipartisan agreement:
Rates: Extends all income tax rates for two more years for all taxpayers.
Estates: Applies a 35 percent tax on estates worth more than $5 million.
Unemployment: Extends unemployment insurance for 13 months,
providing benefits to 2 million long-term unemployed workers
in December and 7 million over the next year.
Payroll: Cuts payroll taxes by 2 percentage points for 2011.
Credits: Extends increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit,
the child credit and tuition credits adopted in 2009.
Businesses: Allows businesses to write off 100 percent of their capital investments during 2011. The current write-off is 50 percent.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_16793236?nclick_check=1
1stindoor
12-07-2010, 08:01
This reminds me of an article I read a week or two ago in the Sunday Parade...
The elections are over. Bart Stupak did not run. After nine terms in Congress, the Democratic representative from Michigan’s 1st District is walking away to the winter of his discontent, sadly wondering what happened to the public service he entered 18 years ago.
“It’s so hateful now,” says Stupak, 58. “My colleagues tell me, ‘You look smarter every day for leaving.’”
It’s wisdom he could do without. Bart Stupak may be Exhibit A of Anger in American Politics. He has long been pro-life. At the same time, he’s championed health-care reform. This year, those two issues came to a head. Stupak bucked his party over President Obama’s health-care bill, concerned that abortions might be publicly funded. Only when the president promised an executive order forbidding such funding did Stupak make the tough choice to vote with his party.
After this, he was called a “baby killer” on the House floor. A Republican colleague screamed those words as Stupak spoke. Stupak was thrown into the media’s hot spotlight. His family received death threats. He took venom from both sides of the aisle.
A month later, he announced he was leaving politics—even though he easily won his last election. Stupak says he quit to spend time with his family, but he will not miss the divisiveness.
“Every boundary of decency has been crossed,” he says. “The ‘baby killer’ thing? Within 24 hours, there were websites up designed to make money off it. That’s how far afield we’ve gone. The more personal you make the attack, the more money you can make to defeat your opponent.”
Stupak sees no end to this pattern. “As much as people say they don’t like negative campaigning, it moves the numbers.”
When did we become so nasty? Former president Jimmy Carter has suggested that we are more divided than at any time since the Civil War. And between talk radio, 24-hour TV and Internet news, and the collapse of civility from town halls to the floors of Congress, it’s hard to argue.
I ask Stupak if only the mean or thick-skinned will now enter politics.
“Add one more element: the very rich,” he answers. “So many good people would be proud to serve, but they wind up saying, ‘If the other guy spends $3 million, what chance do I have?’ The most money and the sharpest attacks tend to win.”
Stupak sighs. “Remember Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Those days are gone.”
And soon Stupak will be, too, leaving the nation’s capital for the small town in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula where he and his wife, Laurie, live. The former Eagle Scout and police officer insists he doesn’t regret his vote. But he looks forward to quieter days.
“I’ll be home soon,” he says. “And if someone stops me in the grocery store and starts yelling at me over health care, I’ll just say I think it’s good for the country and move on.”
Never mind if you disagree with his voting record. What happened to Bart Stupak can happen to anyone now—right or left. As a result, Mr. Smith no longer dreams of going to Washington. He dreams of leaving it. That cannot be good for America. The irony is that at the end of the Frank Capra movie, Mr. Smith, the senator played by Jimmy Stewart, becomes a shining example of the difference one man can make.
Can we become real-life Mr. Smiths and change the ugly tone of our national conversation?
http://www.parade.com/news/views/mitch-albom/110710-mr-smith-flees-washington.html
The Reaper
12-07-2010, 11:54
I believe that the final health care bill was interpreted to allow federal money to pay for abortions, despite the EO signed by the POTUS to the contrary.
So Stupak sold out his constituents and voted against the desires of a majority of them, then acts surprised when they object.
What a hypocritical tool.:rolleyes:
TR
GratefulCitizen
12-07-2010, 15:37
Political reality setting in for Zero? ( after midterm smackdown, move to center)
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_16793236?nclick_check=1
Tax cuts and more money printing (QE2)...
The consequences to China will be interesting.
Their boom is over.
Full employment is driving their inflation, and excess dollars just fuel the fire through fixed exchage rates.
If they let their currency float, they will lose labor competitiveness and face massive unemployment.
Add to all of this their coming demographic implosion.
Mercantilism works really well.
Until it doesn't.
1stindoor
12-07-2010, 15:59
So Stupak sold out his constituents and voted against the desires of a majority of them, then acts surprised when they object.
What a hypocritical tool.:rolleyes:
TR
I posted the article not because of a loss of one person in Washington, but to illustrate the same thing that was said when you compromise your principles.
If the right wing and the left wing won't work together, the bird won't be able to fly...and just might end up dying.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
EX-Gold Falcon
12-14-2010, 19:19
If the right wing and the left wing won't work together, the bird won't be able to fly...and just might end up dying.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
What is the sound of one wing flapping?
CRUNCH
T
What is the sound of one wing flapping?
CRUNCH
T
Well, both sides flapped for the tax bill. So instead of voting "Yes" or "No" to extend the existing bill which was loaded with pork to pass in the first place they worked out a compromise..................
In other words - compromise has larded on more pork to the already weighty original bill.
Another 2,000 page bill nobody has had time to read yet? Just who wrote this one?
The 'Albatross' is ailing...
Richard :munchin
Well, both sides flapped for the tax bill. So instead of voting "Yes" or "No" to extend the existing bill which was loaded with pork to pass in the first place they worked out a compromise..................
In other words - compromise has larded on more pork to the already weighty original bill.
Another 2,000 page bill nobody has had time to read yet? Just who wrote this one?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2n.htm
“In the short time I’ve had to review this massive piece of legislation – I’ve identified approximately 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. Here is a small sample:
$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin
$246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota
$522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey
$500,000 for oyster safety in Florida
$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina
$413,000 for peanut research in Alabama
$247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington
$208,000 beaver management in North Carolina
$94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana
$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont
$235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada
$100,000 for the Edgar Allen Poe Cottage Visitor’s Center in New York
$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii
$400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas
Well, I also read somewhere that it has ONLY 6488 pork...er I mean earmarks...what a DEAL.....NOT
So much for the spew they spouted during mid terms.....what was it...oh yeah, NO MORE EARMARKS..
we fell for it again folks:mad::mad::confused:
The Reaper
12-15-2010, 07:52
So much for the spew they spouted during mid terms.....what was it...oh yeah, NO MORE EARMARKS..
we fell for it again folks:mad::mad::confused:
It is the same Congress, till January.
The newly-elected reps have not taken office yet.
TR
It is the same Congress, till January.
The newly-elected reps have not taken office yet.
TR
True dat (as they say), but I'm not holding my breath. Somehow I feel let down....again..
So much for..HOPE...wainting for the CHANGE...from one crook to another
perdurabo
12-15-2010, 13:12
I'll just be happy when we finally get enough politicians to form a substantial party that still believes in a small fed government. That sure as hell ain't the Republicans.
I wouldn't shed a tear seeing both D and R's flushed. They're about equally repugnant to me.
....get enough politicians to form a substantial party that still believes in a small fed government.
It's not the politicians who form parties, it is the people. They then select a representative for that party to run in general elections, or something like that.
But I understand your point. We will never move away from the established two big party system, at least not in the near future.
Sometimes taking over a failing company is easier than making a new company. Some things still work, not all is bad. Distribution, accounts, contracts are usuable in the "company model", maybe we just need businessmen to run for office, rather than the career politicians who have a history of, well, ........
Government is the closest thing to eternal life on this planet.
And so it goes...
Richard
Ret10Echo
12-15-2010, 17:55
I'll just be happy when we finally get enough politicians to form a substantial party that still believes in a small fed government. That sure as hell ain't the Republicans.
I wouldn't shed a tear seeing both D and R's flushed. They're about equally repugnant to me.
Government is in the business of perpetuating government. Don't lose sight of that fact. It doesn't matter the color of tie or what is in parenthesis after their name.
Government is the closest thing to eternal life on this planet.
And so it goes...
Richard
Agreed...
The only American entity that employs more chicanery than your run-of- the-mill politician is a run-of-the-mill journalist.
PedOncoDoc
12-15-2010, 19:42
The only American entity that employs more chicanery than your run-of- the-mill politician is a run-of-the-mill journalist.
...or lawyer (present company excepted, of course.) :D
The only American entity that employs more chicanery than your run-of- the-mill politician is a run-of-the-mill journalist.
...or banker...or used car salesman...or televangelist...or HMO...or discount futures trader...or realtor...or wannabe...or...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Perhaps they realize that much of the budget debate is closely akin to moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic.
LINK (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf)
The link leads to a report (PDF format) by the Congressional Budget Office, so the numbers are official.
Go to the tables, specifically, table 1-2.
Take a look at income taxes. According to the table, income tax generated $891 B. in 2010, and will generate $1,211 B in 2011 and and $1,404 in 2012.
Take a look at total spending.
Total Outlays
2010: 3,485
2011: 3,714
2012: 3,618
Given the tax cuts - revenue projections seems unlikely. Outlays? I regard the numbers as quite optimistic, YMMV.
New Debt
2010: -1,342
2011: -1,066
2012: -665
2013: -525
Will the deficit go down? Seems unlikely.
So, IMO, the problem is that the legislators recognize we are on a track to disaster...or, for the musically inclined, a highway to Hell...and it is politically impossible to raise taxes or cut spending enough to fix the problem.
My conclusion? Lots of argument, lots of finger-pointing, and little accomplished until some sort of crisis occurs.
Which is a shame.
or discount futures trader
Richard :munchin
Well, if you can't trust a futures trader, who can you trust? I'm emotionally shattered.
:D
Well, if you can't trust a futures trader, who can you trust?
Personally...I have the utmost faith in my HerbaLife rep and my lifetime supply of Horny Goat Weed! :p
And so it goes...whoo-hoo!!!
Richard :munchin
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin