Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    4:17 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Cracks in Grover's Pledge Armor? Back to Topics
RNorm

Champion Author
San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 7:55:14 AM

"More and more, conservative Republicans in Congress are breaking from a pledge they signed years earlier against any kind of tax increase or additional tax revenue.

Facing the so-called fiscal cliff of automatic tax hikes and deep across-the-board spending cuts at the end of the year, the GOP legislators are signaling their willingness to cut a deal with President Barack Obama and Democrats that would include more money for the government.

The overall numbers remain relatively small -- a handful of senators and House members -- but they include influential veterans such as Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, along with Rep. Peter King of New York.

"We don't generate enough revenue," Graham declared Sunday on ABC, officially disagreeing with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed at the behest of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

Others who have rejected the strict dogma of the Norquist pledge include Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Bob Corker of Tennessee, as well as Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, who was elected in the tea party wave of 2010 and recently re-elected."


Is it a slow leak that will grow into a cascade, or a minor drip easily plugged?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:29,267
Points:2,875,410
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 10:29:04 PM


EZExit, "We have a bunch of kindergarteners in Washington fighting over the ball"

Bingo.

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 9:35:14 PM

Tom Coburn backs tax rate hike on wealthy

In a significant development in the fiscal cliff standoff, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a leading deficit hawk, said Wednesday he would support higher tax rates on wealthier Americans as part of a broader deal with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to avoid the crisis.

"I know we have to raise revenue," the senator from Oklahoma told MSNBC. "I don't really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future."

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 3:31:54 PM

The rich will pay more taxes, Boehner says


Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded on Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.

The statements reflected how negotiations on the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to occur on January 1 -- the fiscal cliff -- have evolved since Obama's re-election last month.

Republicans once opposed to any new revenue in their quest to shrink government now realize Obama's victory and public support for the president's campaign theme of higher taxes on the wealthy leave them with little negotiating leverage.


Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 11:40:10 AM

"Only one problem with your thinking RNorm...polls before and after this last election clearly showed that people were not for increasing taxes. The polls before and after Bush was elected showed that people were for those reforms."


Its not my thinking. That's what Bush himself said. And it seemed that all of the "reforms" he insisted he had a mandate for, didn't really happen; because people really weren't for them.

But again, my point was that Obama won by a larger margin than Bush, but he has no mandate, but yet the same peopel said Bush had a mandate (although now they don't remember saying the same)...LOL
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,668
Points:1,585,165
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 9:59:07 AM

>>Bush was re-elected with 51% of the vote, claimed a mandate and the GOP said nothing.<<

Only one problem with your thinking RNorm...polls before and after this last election clearly showed that people were not for increasing taxes. The polls before and after Bush was elected showed that people were for those reforms.

But hey, Obama has gotten by going against the public mandate to pursue his own personal mandate. Healthcare being one of the top!
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 1:08:12 AM

"I don't remember anything about a Bush mandate."


Probably because you wouldn't know a mandate if it slapped you in the face:

"President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

Bush staked his claim to a broad mandate and announced his top priorities at a post-election news conference, saying his 3.5 million vote victory had won him political capital that he would spend enacting his conservative agenda.

"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."


C'mon man!
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,143
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 12:36:15 AM

<<<LOL, your "blame Obama for everything" bent is showing again....>>>

I am not blaming him for anything, but I am critical that as the president (leader) of the U.S., he is not leading. Nor is Reid leading the senate, nor is Boehner leading the house. We have a bunch of kindergarteners in Washington fighting over the ball.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 10:35:37 PM

>>Bush was re-elected with 51% of the vote, claimed a mandate and the GOP said nothing.<<

I don't remember anything about a Bush mandate.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:24:26 PM

"That is no worse than proposing your own non-starter and misrepresenting that its Bowles' plan, so deceptive that Bowles himself has to say "that's not my plan"...

Is that Obama's fault too?"


Must be... somehow.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:00:51 PM

"In this case, RNorm, it's well-earned. Showing up for a budget negotiation to reduce spending with a proposal to INCREASE spending is, uh, unhelpful."


That is no worse than proposing your own non-starter and misrepresenting that its Bowles' plan, so deceptive that Bowles himself has to say "that's not my plan"...

Is that Obama's fault too?

[Edited by: RNorm at 12/4/2012 3:03:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,966
Points:782,965
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:50:32 PM

In this case, RNorm, it's well-earned. Showing up for a budget negotiation to reduce spending with a proposal to INCREASE spending is, uh, unhelpful.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:37:52 PM

"Both sides are so dug in, they can't see the forest for the trees, and Obama is as instrumental as a stick to bring the two sides together."


LOL, your "blame Obama for everything" bent is showing again....
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,966
Points:782,965
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:21:14 PM

OK, so the Republicans put out a counteroffer almost as ridiculous as the Democrats' rehash of the February nonBudget. Apparently stupidity is contagious in DC. There needs to be tax increases AND immediate and ongoing spending reductions- No new unproductive stimulus sweetheart payouts, no new "loopholes" or exemptions for favored contributors, no outrageous quests for political power.

Anyone think "their side" is capable of those things? [sound of crickets]

Looks like we will kick the can down the road to find an even taller cliff, but that road really isn't that much longer and the can has a live grenade in it...

[Edited by: teacher_tim at 12/4/2012 2:23:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,143
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:06:46 AM

We can play slap and tickle all day long here on this thread, but the bottom line is that the democrats want to tax and spend, and not reduce expenditures. The republicans want to reduce expenditures, but not increase taxes. Both sides know quite clearly where the other stands, and compromise means both sides have to give and take. Both sides are so dug in, they can't see the forest for the trees, and Obama is as instrumental as a stick to bring the two sides together.

The least painful way to handle the budget (while still being quite painful) is to increase taxes while dramatically cutting expenses. The next best way (the direction we are heading) is economic collapse where monetary value and the economy are crashed (governmental bankruptcy), and America is forced to rebuild from the ashes.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 12:28:03 AM

"Bowles responded by saying that the Republicans' plan is not a representation of his plan.

"While I'm flattered the Speaker would call something 'the Bowles plan,' the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the President does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan," Bowles wrote in a statement. "In my testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, I simply took the mid-point of the public offers put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where I thought a deal could be reached at that time.

"The Joint Select Committee failed to reach a deal, and circumstances have changed since then. It is up to negotiators to figure out where the middle ground is today. Every offer put forward brings us closer to a deal, but to reach an agreement, it will be necessary for both sides to move beyond their opening positions and reach agreement on a comprehensive plan which avoids the fiscal cliff and puts the debt on a clear downward path relative to the economy."



Republicans submit their OWN non-starter..
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 4:38:30 PM

“But if you raise taxes first, then you wouldn’t have the deficits. Your idea is so g–damn dogmatic that you’re living in a fantasy world where we’re going to balance the budget by abolishing Medicare and other ludicrous ideas.” ---former Reagan Budget Director Bruce Bartlett
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 4:35:50 PM

"There is also no sense in going to all of the time and trouble to create a proposal that will be ignored by the senate as well."

Congress has something more important to do??
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 4:19:27 PM

"The senate's thumbing their noses at past legislation proffered by the house is one of the ways the situation got created in the first place."

Actually, the sequestration was part of the "I got 98% of what I wanted from Obama" deal that Boehner was gleefully bragging about not long ago. But now its time to pay the piper for the deal HE brokered and was happy about, but now the particulars are of course, Obama's fault.






"There is also no sense in going to all of the time and trouble to create a proposal that will be ignored by the senate as well."

That is a tired excuse for not putting up a plan. The Fiscal Cliff is not like a budget which can be circumvented with continuing resolutions. Every person that I've heard in the House AND the Senate says they don't want to go over the cliff, so there is more impetus to getting a deal done than with approving another continuing resolution...







"Time for Obama to act like he cares, and broker talks between the senate and the house, wouldn't you say?"

I'd say its time for Boehner and McConnell to actually put up a counter-proposal rather than whine while they put up nothing.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,143
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 2:53:56 PM

<<<We're talking about the fiscal cliff negotiations...>>>

So am I. The senate's thumbing their noses at past legislation proffered by the house is one of the ways the situation got created in the first place. There is also no sense in going to all of the time and trouble to create a proposal that will be ignored by the senate as well. Time for Obama to act like he cares, and broker talks between the senate and the house, wouldn't you say?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,668
Points:1,585,165
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 2:20:20 PM

It is obvious that the Democrats do not want spending cuts...they do not want to even discuss them...all they want is increased taxes and then they will increase spending and ask for even more taxes.

Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 2:11:14 PM

Bush was re-elected with 51% of the vote, claimed a mandate and the GOP said nothing.

Obama was re-elected with 52% of the vote and now the republicans say that's no mandate?

Funny things happen on the way home from the polls...
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,966
Points:782,965
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:19:33 AM

The House Republicans were elected to control spending; Obama says his 52% mandate was to increase taxes on the wealthy. Republicans have indicated a willingness to compromise on taxes; where is the Democratic counteroffer? The resubmission of last February's proposal is a joke and both sides know it. Plus the President wants sole power over one of the Republicans' bargaining chips: the debt ceiling. That's fine; give the House exclusive control of Social Security, Unemployment and SNAP payouts and call it even.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:28,766
Points:3,462,430
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:08:06 AM

The Republicans want to make massive cuts to federal government spending.

They are waiting for the Democrats to offer the cuts and then they will say in the 2016 election cycle: "We wanted to cut less of your Medicare and Social Security but this is what the Democrats wanted."

To the tea party they will say: "See, we held the line."

The GOP leader, Grover, will be happy with his followers.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 7:12:58 AM

"The only way anything might get done, is if Obama leads, and perhaps tries to get the house and senate to work together for a change and compromise with each other."

What's wrong with expecting the House and Senate to get their own respective houses together and do the job they're employed to do? They are supposed to be a separate yet equal branch of the government, you know.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 6:45:38 AM

"The House has sent a few budget proposals over to the Senate over the past couple of years, where they are instantly exterminated. No discussion, no counter offer, no nothing. Why go through all of the trouble in writing and voting on a budget as a Republican led House if Harry will simply throw them away?"


We're talking about the fiscal cliff negotiations...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,143
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 2:29:40 AM

The House has sent a few budget proposals over to the Senate over the past couple of years, where they are instantly exterminated. No discussion, no counter offer, no nothing. Why go through all of the trouble in writing and voting on a budget as a Republican led House if Harry will simply throw them away?

"GOP plan (or lack thereof)" ROFL!

The only way anything might get done, is if Obama leads, and perhaps tries to get the house and senate to work together for a change and compromise with each other. As long as Obama arrogantly tells Republicans how it is, and sits on his hands, after proposing a budget that actually increases spending, and kicks the spending cuts can down the road, we're going to find our current recession isn't quite done with us yet. At this point, I think the best think for America is to allow the "fiscal cliff" to occur.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 1:33:41 AM

"Review Obama campaign commercials for the past year. You recited the "details" to smear Republican on spending cuts, including Ryan's -- have you misplaced your own commercials?"


Um, I thought we were discussing the GOP plan (or lack thereof) to avoid the fiscal cliff?
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,489
Points:134,850
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 1:21:03 AM

"Has anyone seen the details of the Republican's spending cuts?"

Review Obama campaign commercials for the past year. You recited the "details" to smear Republican on spending cuts, including Ryan's -- have you misplaced your own commercials?

"Obama Biden Truth Team"

"Ryan plan would allow Romney to pay less than 1% in taxes each year"

Less than 1%??? OH REALLY? This was a detail in the plan? or Obama lie?

Thats why I say let Obama have everything he wants, and commence letting the Democrats go down with the ship. Voters believe everything Obama says, you cant overcome this fact. So let voters feel the pain of his "success".
Profile Pic
Hiram 615
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:23,039
Points:2,802,090
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 4:02:47 PM

>"I don't think we need to put a formal proposal out on the table." Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma)<

Republicans have insisted on cuts to spending, but as of yet have presented no cuts. Once they present their plan for cuts to spending, negotiations may begin.

What are they waiting for, the White House to start offering them what they want without having to demand it themselves? Do they really expect the Democrats to offer something they would happily take and then demand even more?

If Republicans want something they're going to have to demand it themselves.

[Edited by: Hiram 615 at 12/2/2012 4:07:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 2:56:01 PM

What is important is that people do the right thing, not who gets the credit for it, Grover just laughs at you guys.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,239
Points:149,355
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 2:23:42 PM

Grover has one thing in his favor as far as I know, he has no sacred cows.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:28,766
Points:3,462,430
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:43:02 PM

From the looks of the people bowing down to him, Norquest is now the new leader of the GOP.

Your elected ones not up to the challenge?

"GROVER 2016"

Get your buttons now.

[Edited by: Cliffisher at 12/2/2012 1:44:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:17:06 PM

"I don't think we need to put a formal proposal out on the table." Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma)
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,471
Points:303,220
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 9:19:26 AM

"Has anyone seen the details of the Republican's spending cuts?"

I doubt the republicans -have- any details.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:28,766
Points:3,462,430
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 8:28:13 AM

Has anyone seen the details of the Republican's spending cuts?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,966
Points:782,965
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 2:42:07 PM

Looks like it's about a month for SOMEBODY to get serious about the situation.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 2:39:13 PM

"It's a nonstarter and Obama knows it. He's just daring Republicans to let the sequester happen, so he can play the "blame game" some more."


Or maybe he's trying to force republicans to put up their plan, since to date, they refuse to do so...
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,966
Points:782,965
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 2:34:35 PM

Someone should probably tell Obama that he WON the election, so he can stop campaigning and actually DO his job. Putting forth a compromise proposal that creates involuntary laughter probably isn't going to cut the mustard.

He may have won the Presidency with 52% of the people voting for him, but the Republicans won the House of Representatives with a majority of the people voting for them to cut spending. Obama's reintroducing the laughable Budget plan from last February certainly isn't going to work, especially after key Republicans indicated a willingness to accept tax increases. Obama's proposal actually INCREASES spending! It's a nonstarter and Obama knows it. He's just daring Republicans to let the sequester happen, so he can play the "blame game" some more.

And where did he come up with a unilateral "Let the President Decide What the Debt Ceiling Should Be" thing? Seriously?! OK, that's fine, in exchange, let the House of Representatives decide defense spending and SSA and Unemployment payouts. That seems fair and balanced.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 1:25:34 PM

"RNorm, are you not concerned at all that Obama and the Democrats are not even interested in making any cuts?"


Yes I am, but before we start saying they're running up the debt, how about lets see what ACTUAL deal come out of the negotiations?






"Their only goal right now is to "win" the tax battle and that is it. They are actually talking about adding more spending so what good is a tax hike if all you are going to do is spend even more? Wasn't the idea behind the tax hike to help decrease our debt...but instead they are talking about more spending and not even discussing cuts."


Right now they're ALL blustering and politicking...so I'm not getting into that...If they run up more debt and do not address the mounting fiscal problem, I'll be one to join the stop spendin choir.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 12:35:08 PM

No one in this country seems to want to address the real problems of this fiscal crisis and the economy that we are in.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,668
Points:1,585,165
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 12:32:18 PM

RNorm, are you not concerned at all that Obama and the Democrats are not even interested in making any cuts? Their only goal right now is to "win" the tax battle and that is it. They are actually talking about adding more spending so what good is a tax hike if all you are going to do is spend even more? Wasn't the idea behind the tax hike to help decrease our debt...but instead they are talking about more spending and not even discussing cuts.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 12:23:57 PM

"Republicans need to stand by their values and beliefs."


Yeah, that's what got this deficit ball rolling...Ask Ol' Teflon Ron about how he tripled the deficit (and how so many of his ardent followers act like he didn't).

SMH
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 12:20:35 PM

There is no mandate. Republicans need to stand by their values and beliefs.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,810
Points:1,025,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 12:13:53 PM

"Freshman Republican congressman Chris Gibson of New York’s Hudson Valley is a former U.S. Army officer. Normally, you’d expect straight talk and a direct answer from a guy like that. But when Representative Gibson was asked just weeks after winning reelection whether he meant to stand by the Americans for Tax Reform pledge against any net tax increase he resorted to evasive maneuvers that would get a new Army recruit busted by his drill sergeant.

Representative Gibson now says he signed his pledge in 2010 when he was a candidate for Congress. But the pledge was made to the people of New York’s 20th congressional district. Since then, the new Census mandated a redrawing of the district lines which included changing the number of the district Gibson was in. So his office now claims: “Congressman Gibson doesn’t plan to re-sign it for the 19th Congressional District, which he now represents (the pledge is to your constituents of a numbered district).”

This comical maneuver should make Representative Gibson a laughing-stock. What if the New York legislature had kept his district number the same? Would he then be bound by it?

About half of his new constituents were also in his old 20th district. Doesn’t his pledge to them still hold?"



Cracks in Grover's Armor brings out Comedy....LOL
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,239
Points:149,355
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 4:34:54 PM

AFSNCO
You put out lots of spin this, and this is why those that make the laws are in termoil.

Obama is almost power less, but the tide has turned in his favor.

The wait or weight and both have tipped to his favor.

lets face it the general public a few years ago voted for gridlock and grid lock they got.

Stalemate has been going on several years since the tea folks arrived.

I do believe checkmate by Obama is in progress.

Like it or not the system is set.

One way or another it will affect all of us let there be no mistake.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,668
Points:1,585,165
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 11:15:52 AM

"Unfortunately, he is correct. Defense is only 25% of the budget but will take 50% of the cuts under sequestration. That is another $492 billion on top of the $500 billion already cut from the military budget."

They are two different things but yes, they total up to almost a $1T in cuts.

The military is going to be a shell just like under Carter at this rate. Unemployment is going to soar with an estimated 1.2M people being put out of work.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,668
Points:1,585,165
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 11:01:31 AM

"Perhaps you saw my appeal to support a new dress code for the house of representatives."

Why only the House of Representatives? Why not have Obama wear a ring leader's outfit because he is the head of this circus and is orchestrating the problem by only wanting a tax hike...not looking at cuts.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:29,267
Points:2,875,410
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 1:07:51 AM


AFSNCO, "That was my point to streetrider. He is under the impression that it will hit defense the worst"

Unfortunately, he is correct. Defense is only 25% of the budget but will take 50% of the cuts under sequestration. That is another $492 billion on top of the $500 billion already cut from the military budget.

This will mean:

• The smallest ground force since before World War II
• The smallest Navy since before World War I
• The smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force
• The smallest civilian workforce in the history of the Defense Department
• Termination of the Joint Strike Fighter and next generation bomber
• Delay of the next generation ballistic missile submarine and cuts to our existing sub fleet
• Cancellation of the littoral combat ship
• Elimination of all modernization of ground combat vehicles and Army helicopters
• Undermine our ability to meet our national security objectives
• Generate significant operational risks and delay response time to crises, conflicts, and disasters
• Severely limit our ability to be forward deployed
• Severely reduce force training and threaten overall operational readiness

All of which liberals love - until it is time to place the blame for our next military defeat.

Then they would have us believe that they are all super patriots.

Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 12:23:19 AM

Obama's attack on the "rich" is merely a smoke screen to distract the uninformed away from the fact that he has no plan for our economy.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,239
Points:149,355
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 12:17:18 AM

AFSNCO
You are only to quick to brand everyone a liberal if they are not in line with your point of view.

Once again, I am an independent, and as an independent I support some Republicans and some Democrats. I support politicians that go to washington without a prepaid agenda.

I understand that there are going to be cuts in government spending in several areas if a deal is not met and not just defense.

However your point on the benefit cuts to veterans hits right at home.

Everyone wants the government to spendless till it affects them.

Instead of the grid lock that exists in Washington they should be solving problems.

What do any of us do when you have to have a car, you go shopping for the best deal.

The government should be doing the same, we all, unless you are extremely rich, learn to make our money stretch by getting the best deals for our households.
You dont quit feeding the kids or let them run naked because you cant buy designer clothes.

Businesses do the same, they put out many bids before awarding a contract.
Why on Gods green earth should our government be different.

Washington has become a place of politics, politics rank above making sure the government runs smoothly.

This is not to say we dont have some genuine politicians that go to Washington to represent the people.

By and large what has transpired over the last several years is totally disgusting.

Perhaps you saw my appeal to support a new dress code for the house of representatives.

They should all wear togas, their performance rivals lampoons Animal House.

Do you realize what they cost us by the last fiasco where our credit rating got down graded.
Don't you agree instead of play chess they should have been problem solving this whole time.

Post a reply Back to Topics