Thank You President Obama!!!

[rwryley]

First of all Bush did NOT include the cost of the war in his budgets. Go look at the President's budget submission from 2004 through 2009 and you will NOT find it.

Second, while the cost of the war was funded through supplemental funding bills those bills authorized expenditures for the war but DID NOT raise a penny of additional revenue to cover that cost. Therefore the credit card metaphor is entirely correct. That spending added to the deficits and national debt. Regardless of which war it is or which president (Bush or Obama) the costs of wars add significantly to the debt each year.

The argument that funding the war with a supplemental appropriation bill (without finding "new money" to pay for it) does not add to debt, reflects the stupid mentality that created this mess. I am not ignoring the fact that many, many Democrats supported this hoax too. But, to blame it entirely on Obama is fraud. And to act outraged about it now is an even bigger hoax.

It is true that annual budgets have not been adopted in recent years and that the government has been funded by continuing resolutions. However it is not true - actually it's an outright lie - to say that the Democrats have "refused" to offer a budget. The Obama administration - specifically the Treasury Department - every single year has submitted a budget proposal to Congress. That Congress didn't act on it is another story.

For a few of those years I think it was both GOP leaders - O'Connell and Boehner - who made it quite clear their singular goal was to defeat Obama and part of that plan gave us the most "do nothing" Congress in memory. Their strategy was to block everything. Even two years ago when Obama and Bohener actually appeared to have struck a long term deal (the so-called "grand bargain") it was the Republican caucus (specifically Paul Ryan and his followers) who blew it up. Not because it was bad policy, but because they didn't want Obama to get credit for anything. I can assure you there were parts of that deal that liberal Democrats would have hated. But in the end, most would have reluctantly supported it. Can't say the same about the GOP's Ryanista wing.

Let's be clear about something in this discussion over national debt and budget priorities. No one I know honestly believes you can balance the budget and reduce deficits without both cutting spending and raising taxes. That means conservatives will have to grow up and give up the notion that we can simply cut our way out of massive debt. It's not going to happen. If you continue military spending increases, cut social spending AND cut taxes even more, and you believe that that formula will reduce debt and the deficit you are a total fraud.

Likewise, liberals are going to have to confront the reality that we need to cut social spending over the long haul to get out of the debt hole. Cuts should be targeted to do the least harm to the most needy. But, everyone is going to have to "give" something.

For me the bottom line is simple. If two hard-headed Irishmen like liberal Tip O'Neil and conservative Ronald Reagan could find ways to compromise and put the country first, the people elected today should be able to do the same thing.

But, when you have some pretty conservative wackos to the far right who are willing to blow things up because they think they are "morally" right, or have some notion that their philosophy is just the way things must be or else, there is no basis for compromise.

It's a pretty sad day when the Republican Speaker of the House can't even bring his own plan up for a vote because a tiny minority of about 35-50 (out of 241) of his party colleagues have jumped ship on him. That speaks louder than almost anything I could say.

[rwryley]

I don't think it's ever been a secret that the Administration cut a deal with Big Pharma by agreeing that Medicare and Medicare would not try to negotiate for lower prescription prices.

But don't blame that exclusively on Obama. Fact is many Democrats in Congress - perhaps most -hate it. Given what happened to Hillary Clinton twenty years ago, it was an effort to remove one high powered source of opposition. Actually the bigger concession was the mandate requiring everyone to get coverage.

I have been nothing short of amazed by conservatives hypocrisy over the Obamacare issue. The basic proposal and the general outline of the plan was actually not Mitt Romey's but came out of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank years ago and was supported by many Republicans.

Amazing how a basically "Republican" idea - a fairly creative one at that - becomes a communist plot to take over health care in American when proposed by a Democrat.

[HUSKER55]

that is called politics

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by rwryley

But, when you have some pretty conservative wackos to the far right who are willing to blow things up because they think they are "morally" right, or have some notion that their philosophy is just the way things must be or else, there is no basis for compromise.

It's a pretty sad day when the Republican Speaker of the House can't even bring his own plan up for a vote because a tiny minority of about 35-50 (out of 241) of his party colleagues have jumped ship on him. That speaks louder than almost anything I could say.

The exact same thing is happening on the left though. Plenty Liberal lawmakers have made it clear that they would rather go over the cliff than slash benefits. Boehner, despite probably being the best statesmen in this whole ordeal, has a extremely shitty job.

Don't kid yourself, the President is just as bad at rallying his party.

[Tom]

So, in essence. Blame Bush.
How refreshing.

hcap, if we go back to Clinton's tax rates, we should also go back to his spending.

[rwryley]

Trust me, Obama has some wackos on the left to deal with but they would not be able (and I don't think they would want to) to sandbag the President the way the the Repubs far righties did to the Speaker.

No doubt Boehner has a tough job. I don't envy him. But calling him a statesman seems like a bit of a stretch.

The great thing about America is that amidst this debate about 8:20pm tonight attention in D.C. will shift to NFL football. There will be Rs and Ds cheering for both squads who are on decidedly different sides right now in the political debates. If we could only bring such a "cooperative" spirit inside the capitol when work resumes Monday.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by rwryley

Trust me, Obama has some wackos on the left to deal with but they would not be able (and I don't think they would want to) to sandbag the President the way the the Repubs far righties did to the Speaker.

You are crazy.

The media doesn't report it the way they do for Boehner but they sand bag him all the time.

How many of Obama's budgets have been put before a vote?

That job's bill sure got rammed through quick too...

HCR was a easy push too...

The media doesn't talk about it but the President is terrible at unifying his party.

[Tom]

Obama has not been a leader at any point in all of this.
He has has done nothing but throw roadblocks and change the deal every time. When Boehner offered the exact same plan that Pelsoi had offered up earlier, it was not even going to get a vote.

Now the big jerk in the WH is demanding and up or down vote if, in effect, the repubs do not cave in. Where the hell was this jerk when the senate refused to vote on over 40 bills the House sent? There has not been an ounce of compromise by the dems - not a single instance where they have given a thing. So screw them.

This is 100% the fault of the dems - read my lips - 100%.

[rwryley]

Originally Posted by Tom

Obama has not been a leader at any point in all of this.
He has has done nothing but throw roadblocks and change the deal every time. When Boehner offered the exact same plan that Pelsoi had offered up earlier, it was not even going to get a vote.

Now the big jerk in the WH is demanding and up or down vote if, in effect, the repubs do not cave in. Where the hell was this jerk when the senate refused to vote on over 40 bills the House sent? There has not been an ounce of compromise by the dems - not a single instance where they have given a thing. So screw them.

This is 100% the fault of the dems - read my lips - 100%.

And when the going gets a tad tough we have to resort to calling the President a "jerk." That really adds to constructive discussion.

Send me a list of the 40 bills you're talking about. Fact is, the GOP has an unwritten rule (so called Hastert Rule) that any bill that doesn't have at least a majority of the Republicans in the House in favor of it won't get a vote even if a bi-partisan majority of Dems and Repubs are willing to pass it. That's about as dictatorial as it gets and undemocratic to boot. Don't lecture us on who is at fault. There's enough of that blame to go around.

Screwing the so-called "them" is screwing the country. Such a pity.

[rwryley]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You are crazy.

The media doesn't report it the way they do for Boehner but they sand bag him all the time.

How many of Obama's budgets have been put before a vote?

That job's bill sure got rammed through quick too...

HCR was a easy push too...

The media doesn't talk about it but the President is terrible at unifying his party.

For the record I'm not crazy.

Second, given that O'Connell in the Senate was going to block consideration by demanding a sixty vote super-majority to consider the jobs bill and virtually any other bill advanced by the President, what's the point? The Dems may have a 53 to 48 majority in the Senate, but when the Rs demand 60 votes to even consider a bill your argument really has no credibility.

It's interesting that you Rs never seem to give the President any points when he joins with you guys to sell out the Bill of Rights on things like wireless wire tapping and torture. But suddenly, on the economic issues he's a fool, a jerk, to some even a socialist. And his supporters are crazy. Fascinating debate strategy. Oh, and when all else fails, blame the media.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by rwryley

Second, given that O'Connell in the Senate was going to block consideration by demanding a sixty vote super-majority to consider the jobs bill and virtually any other bill advanced by the President, what's the point?

Let me explain politics real quick for you...

If you want to really paint a party as obstructionist you put up legislation so the other party can shoot it down. It hurts them in the polls. It hurts them in elections. It hurts their unity as a party. When you have that opportunity you do it!

The Democrats can't do that because they have their own problems. They barely got HCR through after a year of working on it.

Both parties have their problems the biggest one being leadership. The rest of your post is just deflection.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by rwryley

...Second, given that O'(Mc)Connell in the Senate was going to block consideration by demanding a sixty vote super-majority to consider the jobs bill and virtually any other bill advanced by the President, what's the point? ...

Two points to it that are serious enough that the "what's the point" theory doesn't wash with me as I've opined in other threads:

1) It's their job. Again, we have a litany of examples of "light" legislation that wasn't passed because of obstructionism. Apparently, there was a point to forwarding all of that legislation. Hundreds of bills that Republicans blocked. We get the line all the time when it makes that side of the case - "hey, we tried, but they wouldn't let us" - and as I've stated elsewhere, where is all of the major legislation that would have us in Ameritopia by now if it weren't for the fact that it was blocked. Several hundred bills and I've gotten two sincere replies and the best examples were bills that actually were passed. I hate being redundant, but surely we didn't have time to press on with all of those hundreds of bills for emergency radio subsidies and whatnot, but said, "ah hell" to the important ones.

2) And this is the one that actually counts, because it is a political argument. These nitwits are in the business of crafting great sounding legislation and then attaching crap to it that they know good and well will get voted down JUST so they can claim that the pretext bill was voted against by so-and-so. "John Dicklicker voted AGAINST our veterans getting blah blah blah" when the reality is that John Dicklicker voted against the rider that was going to pay for a cotton candy factory in Tibet. So, I don't REALLY buy into the theory that these vote hookers wouldn't press on with anything important because they know there's no point. There is SO much to gain politically by being able to attack your opponent for voting against something specific, that the whole "what's the point" theory just does not fly whatsoever with me.

I can avoid ranting redundantly on many of these recycled arguments, but that one grinds my gears for some reason.

[Tom]

And when the going gets a tad tough we have to resort to calling the President a "jerk." That really adds to constructive discussion.

The truth never hurts.

[rwryley]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Two points to it that are serious enough that the "what's the point" theory doesn't wash with me as I've opined in other threads:

1) It's their job. Again, we have a litany of examples of "light" legislation that wasn't passed because of obstructionism. Apparently, there was a point to forwarding all of that legislation. Hundreds of bills that Republicans blocked. We get the line all the time when it makes that side of the case - "hey, we tried, but they wouldn't let us" - and as I've stated elsewhere, where is all of the major legislation that would have us in Ameritopia by now if it weren't for the fact that it was blocked. Several hundred bills and I've gotten two sincere replies and the best examples were bills that actually were passed. I hate being redundant, but surely we didn't have time to press on with all of those hundreds of bills for emergency radio subsidies and whatnot, but said, "ah hell" to the important ones.

2) And this is the one that actually counts, because it is a political argument. These nitwits are in the business of crafting great sounding legislation and then attaching crap to it that they know good and well will get voted down JUST so they can claim that the pretext bill was voted against by so-and-so. "John Dicklicker voted AGAINST our veterans getting blah blah blah" when the reality is that John Dicklicker voted against the rider that was going to pay for a cotton candy factory in Tibet. So, I don't REALLY buy into the theory that these vote hookers wouldn't press on with anything important because they know there's no point. There is SO much to gain politically by being able to attack your opponent for voting against something specific, that the whole "what's the point" theory just does not fly whatsoever with me.

I can avoid ranting redundantly on many of these recycled arguments, but that one grinds my gears for some reason.

Minus the off-color lingo I can actually appreciate your point. That criticism applies to both sides.

It's also a two-way street and your point also applies to letting those who just want to gum up the works get away with it. I think Harry Reid's biggest mistake comes when Mitch McConnell announces his intention to pursue a fillibuster on some proposal, Reid pulls the bill. That's just wrong. If either party wants to pursue a fillibuster they should be required to plant themselves on the floor of the Senate and talk forever.

Sooner or later the public will see for themselves who are the real culprits that want to stall everything they don't like even when they don't have anything close to a majority.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by rwryley

Minus the off-color lingo ...

My apologies. When using ambiguous aliases in lieu of proper names in the context of referencing our fine elected officials, my fingers have a habit of getting right through the filter attached to what's left of my brain.