#22 Feb 26, 2013
I believe we are all going to have to take some hits to get the country back on a stable financial
footing. I think our elected officials ought to be willing to sacrifice what they ask their con-stituants to sacrifice. I'm willing to take some hits if the money is used in a responsible manor.
I'm also not against paying higher taxes to get the country back on track. I also believe the wealthy should be paying their fair share. I also believe that the last Republican administration has played a major roll in the countries
financial probloms. Two longterm wars that were costing $500 Million a day.(the first one possibly justified the second one probably not)the Bush tax cuts 2.8 T. The cost of treating the countless maimed and injured service men and women that these 2 wars produced. This has all strained the US govt finances. If we really can't afford it right now Obama care should be scaled back. I also believe that the people who are gravely ill or un-
surable should still be protected. I think the President has a lot of good intentions for the long term but he has to face reality now. This is how I feel about the whole mess.
#23 Feb 27, 2013
#24 Feb 27, 2013
Democrats .. the Authors of the Sequestration Bill
Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/827...
And yet the blind liberals still claim that this was a Republican Bill. The 47% appear no better at critical thinking than they are at paying taxes.
#26 Feb 27, 2013
Might I ask who the frick gives a damn about whose "fault" it is? Frankly - not only is that completely counterproductive but no matter what comes of such arguments-over-nothing can only and ever be partial arguments.
Here's the alternative - the issues we have belong to ALL OF US and we all participated in getting here - whether you think you participated or not.
So I'd like everyone to shut the hell up about their ridiculous, concocted "theories" about whose "fault" anything is. Do some serious citizenship.
#27 Feb 27, 2013
I doubt that anyone is concerned as to what you would like.
Please tell us what you are doing to correct the issue at hand. This ought to be good.
#28 Feb 27, 2013
A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left's race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act--enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.
The study painstakingly sorted through failed home loans that caused the housing market collapse and identified an overwhelming connection between them and CRA mortgages.
Again, let's review:
-President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone). Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down.
-John McCain also co-sponsored urgently critical reforms that would have prevented the housing market collapse, but Democrats shut that down as well, along party lines, and even openly ridiculed anyone who suggested reforms were necessary...to protect their taxpayer-funded campaign contributions as the economy raced uncontrollably toward the cliff.
-No one was making bad loans to unqualified people until Democrats came along and threatened to drag banks into court and have them fined and branded as racists if they didn't go along with the left's Affirmative Action lending policies...all while federally insuring their losses. Even the New York Times warned in the late 1990s that Democrats continuing to force banks into lowering their standards would lead to this exact catastrophe.
-Obama himself is even on the record personally helping sue one lender (Citibank) into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas, which even one of the left's favorite blatantly partisan "fact-checkers," Snopes, admits (while pretending to 'set the record straight').
Even The New York Times admitted that there is "little evidence" of any connection between the "Republican" deregulation measures Obama blames, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act (signed into law by a Democrat), and the collapse of the housing market.
But non-Fox media have spent years deliberately and relentlessly inoculating people against the facts, training them to mindlessly blame Bush for being in charge when Democrat policies destroyed the economy. So here we sit, to this day, still watching Obama excuse and shrug off endless economic failures, illegal government takeovers and utter national bankruptcy with zero accountability.
“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”
Since: Aug 09
You don't need to know, Va.
#29 Feb 27, 2013
#30 Feb 27, 2013
actually the economy is doing much better than when bush left it, but some of us live in an alternate reality
here ya go huck
"A budget isnít necessary. Budget resolutions donít have the force of law. Appropriations bills are where spending is allocated. While the budget provides a long-term framework for spending and revenue, lawmakers donít actually have to pass one. While the Senate is legally required to pass a budget, there is no penalty for not doing so.
ďThe fact is that you donít need a budget,Ē Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said last year.ďWe can adopt appropriation bills and we can adopt authorization policies without a budget.Ē
Since August of 2011, Democratic senators have contended that the Budget Control Act that ended the last debt ceiling crisis set spending caps for the next several years, eliminating the need for a separate budget. Schumer said Sunday that Democrats would have passed a budget this year with or without the House GOP threat because the Budget Control Actís specific spending targets end in 2013. Democrats say that in 2010, lawmakers shifted their attention from a Democratic budget, which did get out of the Senate Budget Committee, to the Simpson-Bowles plan, which came out at the end of the year."
#31 Feb 27, 2013
I am working on a new political party. Its target base is all of the partisan and ideological bickerers like you - who rather than dealing with reality go around the world selecting bits of it that best fit their own ideological nonsense. I'm calling it the 3rd grade civics textbook party, or maybe just the ideological fantasies party. Once we get you all into that party, the rest of us who actually act like citizens can get on with the serious business while you all hang around on a street corner damning England [metaphorically speaking - see the account of The True Blue Americans from Gangs of New York].
The "blame-game" is what is wrong - and you are just participating in it. Get over it. It produces very twisted pictures of reality at the same time as it just jams everything up.
#32 Feb 27, 2013
And 8.2% of $3000 is $246.00, and 7.6% is $228.00. And that's only if your paycheck gets hit with the entire amount of the sequestration. Rumor is two days of furlough per month. You can use your vacation time to fill in the missing pay. And it's two days, because it won't start til June. If it had started in January as scheduled it would have been one day of furlough per month.
I think they could take care of all federal employees sequestration dollar amounts just by not paying for all the government holidays each month.
The last time our federal goverment employees had a holiday, last Monday for President's Day, did you get the day off with pay? Why should the federal employees get all of these paid holidays when the rest of us must work to pay the taxes that give them the paid day off.
Sequestration is not enough, we need permanent changes to how we allow our government to spend our money.
Since: Feb 13
#33 Feb 27, 2013
Well....for a simpleton - I do know math, and the sequestration amount is TWO PERCENT. so, in my example....60 dollars is correct. Please provide me with ONE link that shows who instigated and proposed this sequestration - then we can talk. Also, It will NOT affect anything. It does not reduce the remaining increased spending, or next year - it is a one time 2% reduction. Oh.....Your president is the one who determines what gets cut, and how much. Not a single congressman or senator.
Add your comments below
|GOP to offer budget blueprint with Medicare, fo...||Mar 24||goonsquad||109|
|Sunday Talk Preview: Jordan Joins Fight||Feb '15||Le Jimbo||2|
|Paul, Kerry spar over Islamic State, war powers||Dec '14||Grubered out||8|
|U.S. Congress to revisit Islamic State war deba...||Nov '14||barefoot2626||19|
|Obama to defend airstrikes at U.N. as Syrians s... (Sep '14)||Sep '14||Hoogle||4|
|Time's up? Dem senator plans bill on Syria stri... (Sep '14)||Sep '14||Monty Anaconda||5|
|Americans strongly opposed airstrikes in Syria ... (Aug '14)||Aug '14||Cordwainer Trout||8|
Find what you want!
Search Senator Tim Kaine Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC