Obama would gain +10 respect points for me if he made a statement about this PAYG bill saying basically "Listen chucklefucks, this shit is exactly what I was talking about."
Obama would gain +10 respect points for me if he made a statement about this PAYG bill saying basically "Listen silly geese, this shit is exactly what I was talking about."
So you know how republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility? They hate overzealous spending and want to reign it in whenever possible. Surely they thought Obama's suggestion to reinstate pay-as-you-go was a great idea, right?
So you know how republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility? They hate overzealous spending and want to reign it in whenever possible. Surely they thought Obama's suggestion to reinstate pay-as-you-go was a great idea, right?
So you know how republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility? They hate overzealous spending and want to reign it in whenever possible. Surely they thought Obama's suggestion to reinstate pay-as-you-go was a great idea, right?
So you know how republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility? They hate overzealous spending and want to reign it in whenever possible. Surely they thought Obama's suggestion to reinstate pay-as-you-go was a great idea, right?
So you know how republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility? They hate overzealous spending and want to reign it in whenever possible. Surely they thought Obama's suggestion to reinstate pay-as-you-go was a great idea, right?
Is there any logical reason why this wouldn't be helpful? Or am I right in thinking that it's just a bunch of whiny children disagreeing because it wasn't their idea.
00014 28-Jan H.J.Res. 45 On the Joint Resolution Agreed to H. J. Res. 45 As Amended; A joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
00013 28-Jan H.J.Res. 45 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3299 Agreed to Reid Amdt. No. 3299 As Amended; In the nature of a substitute.
00012 28-Jan H.J.Res. 45 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3305 Agreed to Reid Amdt. No. 3305; To reimpose statutory pay-as-you-go.
Is there any logical reason why this wouldn't be helpful? Or am I right in thinking that it's just a bunch of whiny children disagreeing because it wasn't their idea.
That's exactly it. They're whiny children and any win for the democrats makes the republicans look bad.
The thing to know about pubs is that they don't have any goals, any ideals, or any inkling to actually govern. All they want to do is win, hold their seat, and win again in the next election. If something is not democrat and somewhat popular, they are for it. If something is seen as being democratic, then they are against it. Simple as that.
It's one of the rare things in legislation that is exactly what it sounds like.
It doesn't sound like anything. What am I paying as I'm going?
Its a rule, most recently in effect from 1990-2002 (IIRC) that means if you propose new spending you have to offset that spending elsewhere or identify a revenue stream to pay for it (taxes, fees, etc).
The thing to know about pubs is that they don't have any goals, any ideals, or any inkling to actually govern. All they want to do is win, hold their seat, and win again in the next election. If something is not democrat and somewhat popular, they are for it. If something is seen as being democratic, then they are against it. Simple as that.
They absolutely do have goals; they've just decided that the best long-term strategy for affecting them is a slash-and-burn fuck-the-country-now plan for getting the democrats swept out of office.
Once they control everything again it'll be back to tax cuts and banning abortion.
It's one of the rare things in legislation that is exactly what it sounds like.
It doesn't sound like anything. What am I paying as I'm going?
Its a rule, most recently in effect from 1990-2002 (IIRC) that means if you propose new spending you have to offset that spending elsewhere or identify a revenue stream to pay for it (taxes, fees, etc).
Ah. And I see all Republicans voted against it. I'm shocked. Democrats better start hitting this shit in the lead up to November.
It's one of the rare things in legislation that is exactly what it sounds like.
It doesn't sound like anything. What am I paying as I'm going?
Its a rule, most recently in effect from 1990-2002 (IIRC) that means if you propose new spending you have to offset that spending elsewhere or identify a revenue stream to pay for it (taxes, fees, etc).
Ah. And I see all Republicans voted against it. I'm shocked. Democrats better start hitting this shit in the lead up to November.
Well, from a Republican perspective, I suppose you could see the result of PAYG being taxes getting raised to pay for programs that you don't think should exist at the Federal level in the first place.
I hope I hear about this outside of PA...it seems like everything that makes me frown I see everywhere but everything that makes me smile doesnt get passed these forums or blogs...
Dems need to hammer the pubs on this. I cant even see a valid excuse for them other then "well...it wasnt our idea..."
like its disgusting how they refuse to do their damned jobs. I really wish Obama would just wonder if he even wants a second term of this crap, give up trying to appear political and call them out. Give a speech where he literally says "your job is NOT to get re-elected, your job is to serve the American people, do your god damned jobs! That goes for you too democrats!"
I hope I hear about this outside of PA...it seems like everything that makes me frown I see everywhere but everything that makes me smile doesnt get passed these forums or blogs...
Dems need to hammer the pubs on this. I cant even see a valid excuse for them other then "well...it wasnt our idea..."
like its disgusting how they refuse to do their damned jobs. I really wish Obama would just wonder if he even wants a second term of this crap, give up trying to appear political and call them out. Give a speech where he literally says "your job is NOT to get re-elected, your job is to serve the American people, do your god damned jobs! That goes for you too democrats!"
"Mitch McConnell? I don't even know, man...he's a jackass."
I really wish Obama would just wonder if he even wants a second term of this crap, give up trying to appear political and call them out. Give a speech where he literally says "your job is NOT to get re-elected, your job is to serve the American people, do your god damned jobs! That goes for you too democrats!"
He literally just said nearly exactly that in the State of the Union. And called out both parties for election fever.
Yeah, Ive been busy as heck the last two days and havent had a chance to watch it...so, props to him. Hopefully ill be able to bask in the glory of him doing so this weekend. My bad.
the color of the dress was good on her. But whenever she stood up, the cut of it was like "whoa, ghettobooty!" It was not a flattering dress by any measure.
Am I the only one slightly worried about this VA Gov come 2012?
McDonnell? He's unlikely to be terribly good as a national candidate. But you never know.
EDIT: Hell, Scott Brown is more likely at this rate.
True, last night he seemed to pander quite a bit to Virginia, but give him 2 years and I'm sure his staff can have him doing national level pandering.
He's young, fairly good-looking and charismatic. On Television, he seemed almost like a perfect counter to Obama.
Also, his speech smacked of the type of Republicanism that I recognize. He was not overly to the Right, he was not a complete nutjob. His speech actually made the beginnings of real arguments against the President and what the rest of us want.
Of course, he screwed up on the offshore drilling part, but that's minor.
As far as looks and potential, I would say that McDonnell is just as likely, if not more so than Palin.
At least, if anybody in the RNC knows what they're doing.
Palin is near the bottom of my list of "Republicans likely to make a decent run in 2012".
Your list, but not necessarily the RNC's.
Jindal got his shot last year at becoming a national face, and he blew it. He becamea national name, but one that was filled with mockery. So obviously trying to combat Brown with Brown just wasn't going to work this year. And the RNC, while they haven't shown a lot of restraint on being silly geese lately, is not stupid enough to put Palin in front of a microphone like that (besides, I'm not sure she cannow being an unelected official and a Pundit now...).
I know it seems a bit odd, but I don't think that McDonnell crashed and burned in his introduction to the National Stage last night. And again, the RNC is looking for Potential. Yes, Scott Brown is their darling right now and McDonnell gave him the requisite fellatio in the speech last night, but they want to keep Scott Brown where he is. In the senate. Being all number 41 and such.
Last night's rebuttal and next years as well are going to be the testing grounds for the GOP candidate in 2012. Find somebody who can not only follow Obama convincingly, but who can easily match the President on other intangible factors.
At least, that's how I see what happened last night. the RNC got their silly goose heads out of their silly goose asses for at least one night and they put on a stage show that worked.
Don't discount Jindal yet. Clinton's first national speech at the Democratic National Convention was widely mocked. People actually applauded when he said "In conclusion" because the speech was almost over. Single speeches have a habit of being forgotten. That said, anyone's greatest asset for forging forward in the GOP is the fact that such a void has been left since the Bush administration. They were all so stigmatized that no one heavily affiliated with them is likely to be able to run. As such, the GOP list for 2012 is very, very short.
Times have changed since Clinton gave his first speech though.
In what way? People still have short memories.
But National Exposure on this kind of shit is WAY bigger.
I think you guys are insane if you honestly believe he responded directly in any way to the president. We must be reading different transcripts. He was so vague it wasn't even funny.
The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling -- without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a vote on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can't pay for. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall plan. Thirty-nine Republicans voted no. The 40th, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), skipped the vote.
The state of the union is . . . unchanged.
Holy shit, from Dana Milbank?! Wow.
AND it includes this quote?!
Baucus, the Democratic floor leader, realized he was wasting his breath. "I think we all know where we are," he said before one of Thursday's votes, declining the time he had been given to speak.
The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling -- without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a vote on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can't pay for. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall plan. Thirty-nine Republicans voted no. The 40th, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), skipped the vote.
The state of the union is . . . unchanged.
I love how the first vote and the second vote essentially contradict each other. (Let's let us have more debt (NO!) let's make sure we pay for everything (NO!).
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
link that isnt tv?
different speech wise, i am looking forward to see palin speak/crash when she is at the tea party convention trying to get the tea party to join the republican party (and to take 100k)
You guys need to watch this House Republican conference Obama's at when cspan replays it. Obama's just not taking any crap.
He just flat out said [paraphrased slightly]"your whole question was structured as a campaign talking point."
:^:
I hope that this ushers in a new era of not taking shit, because honestly portraying the republicans as a bunch of obstructionist silly gooses, is exactly how they should be treated. Will americans out of work think its hilarious that republicans keep voting no on everything? Doubtful.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
At the end of McDonnells speech where he lists off the responsibilities of government...
"...where opportunity is absent, we must create it."
"...where opportunity is limited, we must expand it."
"...where opportunity is unequal, we must make it open to everyone."
I couldn't help but think of same-sex marriage at that point. Granted I've been following the prop 8 trial so it's been at the front of my mind. At first glance it would seem that talk like this would make him a supporter of you know, equality.
The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling -- without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a vote on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can't pay for. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall plan. Thirty-nine Republicans voted no. The 40th, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), skipped the vote.
The state of the union is . . . unchanged.
I love how the first vote and the second vote essentially contradict each other. (Let's let us have more debt (NO!) let's make sure we pay for everything (NO!).
Are you the party of "no"?
NO!
Clevinger on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling -- without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a vote on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can't pay for. All 40 Republicans voted no.
The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall plan. Thirty-nine Republicans voted no. The 40th, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), skipped the vote.
The state of the union is . . . unchanged.
I love how the first vote and the second vote essentially contradict each other. (Let's let us have more debt (NO!) let's make sure we pay for everything (NO!).
You guys need to watch this House Republican conference Obama's at when cspan replays it. Obama's just not taking any crap.
He just flat out said [paraphrased slightly]"your whole question was structured as a campaign talking point."
:^:
I hope that this ushers in a new era of not taking shit, because honestly portraying the republicans as a bunch of obstructionist silly gooses, is exactly how they should be treated. Will americans out of work think its hilarious that republicans keep voting no on everything? Doubtful.
The overall theme was "We've all been silly geese, but you guys have been laying it on thick. Let's drop the act."
MKR on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
I hope this is the first sign of a Howard Beale-style freak out on Obama's part. That'd be awesome.
BALTIMORE - In a face-to-face encounter, President Barack Obama chastised Republican lawmakers Friday for opposing him on health care, economic stimulus and other major issues.
Republicans pushed back on taxes and spending, and accused Obama of not taking their ideas seriously.
Obama, attending the House Republicans' retreat in Baltimore, began with conciliatory remarks but soon became more pointed. He said a GOP-driven "politics of no" was blocking action on bills that could help Americans obtain jobs and health care.
In a sometimes-barbed exchange, he said some in the audience have attended ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects funded by the stimulus package they voted against. Obama also questioned why Republicans have overwhelmingly opposed his tax-cut policies, which he said have benefited 95 percent of American families.
"The notion that this was a radical package is just not true," Obama said. "I am not an ideologue."
GOP lawmakers pressed the president to pledge to support a line-item veto for spending bills and across-the-board tax cuts. Obama demurred, saying billionaires don't need new tax cuts.
In his opening remarks, Obama criticized a Washington culture driven by opinion polls and nonstop political campaigns.
"I don't think the American people want us to focus on our job security, they want us to focus on their job security," he said.
The president acknowledged that Republicans have joined Democrats in some efforts, such as sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. But he said he was disappointed and perplexed by virtually unanimous GOP opposition to other programs, such as the $787 billion economic stimulus bill enacted a year ago.
He also noted overwhelming Republican opposition to his proposed overhaul of the nation's health care, which now is in legislative peril. Obama said he would gladly look at better ideas, but he urged Republicans to acknowledge the difficulties that many Americans face in obtaining good health care.
Obama said it makes ideological sense for Democrats and Republicans to work together on some issues such as charging fees to banks that benefited from a federal bailout, temporarily freezing some government spending, keeping jobs from being exported and paying for new government programs when they are created.
Republicans have sharply criticized Obama's approach to most of these issues.
Posts
Well, I'm liking Brown so far.
And by that you mean Sherrod Brown?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Do you mean Scott Brown? Because he's not seated yet. The Brown that voted for this is Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
BEAT'D SILLY GOOSE IT
Sherrod Brown is way more awesome than anything you'd expect out of Ohio though.
I was looking at the wrong name but my internet went down for an hour right after I submitted that post ;_;
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_2.htm
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It's one of the rare things in legislation that is exactly what it sounds like.
That's exactly it. They're whiny children and any win for the democrats makes the republicans look bad.
The thing to know about pubs is that they don't have any goals, any ideals, or any inkling to actually govern. All they want to do is win, hold their seat, and win again in the next election. If something is not democrat and somewhat popular, they are for it. If something is seen as being democratic, then they are against it. Simple as that.
It doesn't sound like anything. What am I paying as I'm going?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Its a rule, most recently in effect from 1990-2002 (IIRC) that means if you propose new spending you have to offset that spending elsewhere or identify a revenue stream to pay for it (taxes, fees, etc).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They absolutely do have goals; they've just decided that the best long-term strategy for affecting them is a slash-and-burn fuck-the-country-now plan for getting the democrats swept out of office.
Once they control everything again it'll be back to tax cuts and banning abortion.
Ah. And I see all Republicans voted against it. I'm shocked. Democrats better start hitting this shit in the lead up to November.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I think this is one of those situations where by knowing it, it seems obvious to me.
Pants nailed it.
Sounds good to me, I've saved hundreds of dollars on this thing.
Well, from a Republican perspective, I suppose you could see the result of PAYG being taxes getting raised to pay for programs that you don't think should exist at the Federal level in the first place.
Dems need to hammer the pubs on this. I cant even see a valid excuse for them other then "well...it wasnt our idea..."
like its disgusting how they refuse to do their damned jobs. I really wish Obama would just wonder if he even wants a second term of this crap, give up trying to appear political and call them out. Give a speech where he literally says "your job is NOT to get re-elected, your job is to serve the American people, do your god damned jobs! That goes for you too democrats!"
"Mitch McConnell? I don't even know, man...he's a jackass."
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Still walks the party line, he'll cross party lines when convenient, but ain't no one from the pubs going to put their name on dem legislation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think you guys are insane if you honestly believe he responded directly in any way to the president. We must be reading different transcripts. He was so vague it wasn't even funny.
AND it includes this quote?!
Maybe they ARE finally getting it!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
He just flat out said [paraphrased slightly]"your whole question was structured as a campaign talking point."
I love how the first vote and the second vote essentially contradict each other. (Let's let us have more debt (NO!) let's make sure we pay for everything (NO!).
:^:
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
different speech wise, i am looking forward to see palin speak/crash when she is at the tea party convention trying to get the tea party to join the republican party (and to take 100k)
I hope that this ushers in a new era of not taking shit, because honestly portraying the republicans as a bunch of obstructionist silly gooses, is exactly how they should be treated. Will americans out of work think its hilarious that republicans keep voting no on everything? Doubtful.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Are you the party of "no"?
NO!
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The overall theme was "We've all been silly geese, but you guys have been laying it on thick. Let's drop the act."
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)