Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.
I heard the same - PBS news hour. Said they also want more tax cuts for the top tier.
Are they TRYING to blow the 2012 election?
And do we have a link - preferably to a vaguely rational source?
No it's not good.
We're paying the players in the porky pig-pen a pretty big salary to do their fucking job and produce a definitive and fair source of revenue,
alongside a list of government services We, The People can expect to be provided by that revenue stream.
That is the extent of their job description - the rest is expensive, bullshit favoritism.
Slashing budgets across the board will create chaos in the military and beyond.
That's true. The Republicans have an AMAZING record of maintaining a certain base in spite of their pretty blatant pandering to the top tier.
I say let the cuts go through. When Iran launches nuclear missiles at our European allies, the public might finally wake up to what a bunch of wackos the Dims are. Plus, we'll be rid of millions of socialists.
Ok, a little Congressional fact and reality. In order to PASS a new law would require BOTH houses of Congress to pass it AND the signature of the President. The Senate is controlled by the Democrats and the President is Obama.
Remind us again what the chances of such a law being passed is?
Like I said, this is nothing more then a political lie designed to fear monger and cast doubt.
I believe I addressed the chances here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-ar-thinking-of-renigging-2.html#post4408595
It is not a lie. Some republicans are talking about the pros, cons politics and legalities of attempting to back out of the deal completely and also parts of it. So are some Democrats.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And there's also reporting that there are efforts to get around the so-called sequester, wherein you would undo the penalty of these automatic cuts if you don't reach an agreement. Is that -- is there truth to that report?
REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, there are certainly people who say they want to get rid of the sequester.
Deficit Super Committee Stuck in Stalemate as Deadline Nears | PBS NewsHour | Nov. 14, 2011 | PBS
So some republicans AND some DEMOCRATS are talking of passing ne laws? BUT your head line only says Republicans? And you reported it with a straight face withut informing anyone of the omission?
Remind us again who is Reneging?
No it's not good.
At this point, all cuts in government are good.
We're paying the players in the porky pig-pen a pretty big salary to do their fucking job and produce a definitive and fair source of revenue,
We don't have a problem with revenue, we have a problem with spending. Furthermore, the lions share of spending is on corruption. Payola to corrupt public employee unions, absurd bribes of voting blocs with Medicare D.
A 90% cut in federal spending is a good start, then we can work on the more difficult cuts.
alongside a list of government services We, The People can expect to be provided by that revenue stream.
Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee - the unending refrain from the left.
I expect the federal government to secure our borders - it does not. I expect the federal government to ensure safe passage on the high seas - it barely does so. I expect the federal government to provide a system of courts for resolution of disputes between the many states.
I do NOT expect the federal government to pay my mortgage, nor to pay for my health care or feed my children lunch.
That is the extent of their job description - the rest is expensive, bullshit favoritism.
Slashing budgets across the board will create chaos in the military and beyond.
Good. we need some chaos to get this back under control.
You like the current tax code of favoritism and corruption?
Step 1) Fair and simple taxes.
Step 2) A budget that is balanced by law.
Without step one, step two is a waste of time.
How would that go, since 9-9-9 has been proven to be a bad idea?
Congress cannot pass a law that they can't renege on.
All it takes is passing another law.
Ok, a little Congressional fact and reality. In order to PASS a new law would require BOTH houses of Congress to pass it AND the signature of the President. The Senate is controlled by the Democrats and the President is Obama.
Remind us again what the chances of such a law being passed is?
Like I said, this is nothing more then a political lie designed to fear monger and cast doubt.
I believe I addressed the chances here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-ar-thinking-of-renigging-2.html#post4408595
It is not a lie. Some republicans are talking about the pros, cons politics and legalities of attempting to back out of the deal completely and also parts of it. So are some Democrats.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And there's also reporting that there are efforts to get around the so-called sequester, wherein you would undo the penalty of these automatic cuts if you don't reach an agreement. Is that -- is there truth to that report?
REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, there are certainly people who say they want to get rid of the sequester.
Deficit Super Committee Stuck in Stalemate as Deadline Nears | PBS NewsHour | Nov. 14, 2011 | PBS
You like the current tax code of favoritism and corruption?
Step 1) Fair and simple taxes.
Step 2) A budget that is balanced by law.
Without step one, step two is a waste of time.
How would that go, since 9-9-9 has been proven to be a bad idea?
