|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Gingrich's endorsement of Obama for Presidentended his presidential campaign at a press conference Wednesday afternoon in Virginia. " 'Today I am suspending the campaign, but suspending the campaign does not mean suspending citizenship,' Gingrich said. He thanked Rick Perry, Herman Cain and casino mogul and super PAC donor Sheldon Adelson, among others. "Gingrich tepidly endorsed the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney. 'I'm asked sometimes, Is Mitt Romney conservative?' Gingrich said. 'And my answer is simple: Compared to Barack Obama? This is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan. This is a choice between Mitt Romney and the most radical leftist president in history. ' " >> Whoa, if I could be a voter in that contest, that would clinch the decision for me: Of those 2 [until jan launches his 3rd-party candidate], Barack Obama would be the one to vote for. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
sham states to one. Do you remember 2010 election where Republicans (mostly TEA party people) won back the House and several Senate seats? Get ready... this will be bigger. Despite all the cute slogans and vile name calling, people actually realize that they are NOT better off than four years ago. Despite the stock market being artificially contrived higher, people know that their savings accounts and 401K's are not as good as before Obama. Most people understand that their houses are worth less than before BO. And most people are tired of excuses and putting the blame on somebody else. Most people want a real man to be President and not a pretender. People know, despite government manipulated statistics, that there are more unemployed now and the prospects are bleak for better employment. Despite speeches to the contrary, people can see that policies and regulations are causing a rise in gas prices, energy costs, and food. Most people can see the hollow, shallow lies and false pretenses of this president and his administration. I predict a huge blowout. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 02-May-12, 21:28 |
Deleted by dmaestro on 02-May-12, 21:36.
|
||||||
|
dmaestro 02-May-12, 21:36 |
|
||||||
|
dm And, in 2010 there weren't enough people like me to make the huge, sweeping win. It was a cross-boundaries win which included your favorite middle ground, independents. It will be even bigger this Fall as things will not have improved. They can't with these policies. The huge tax increases are coming and those aren't going to be resolved. The country will get another financial credit downgrade. Iran will get the bomb. Housing will not be better... maybe worse. The "official" unemployment numbers will hover at 8 - 9%, although everyone knows that the real numbers are about 17 - 20%. Inflation is rising despite government manipulation and lies about the statistics. YOU are as far off on this prediction as you were two years ago when you assured everyone that the Senate would pass a budget. The Senate has NOT passed a budget for three years. Do you think there is any correlation to the administration being unable to pass a budget for three years and three years of $1.5 TRILLION deficits which have increased our national debt by over $5 TRILLION? (btw... that is more than ALL the previous presidents put together) |
||||||
|
dmaestro 02-May-12, 22:14 |
As usual you have your facts wrong. I have looked at the detailed analyses of who voted. For example, voices.washingtonpost.com It is people like you who voted in much larger percentages, there was no big shift. Most people don't want a tea party and rich man run government. That is what is in Obama's favor. |
||||||
|
softy it will be a close election - both the right and the left are actively mobilizing. the right wing has been agitating for the entire obama term. the left is anxious to avoid the disaster that would be a romney presidency, and is diligently recruiting people - latinos and young people will make the difference in this election, and that calculus does not favor the republicans. you may be right that obama loses - it would not surprise me much, but i predict a huge voter turnout, a close election, and a narrow obama victory. |
||||||
|
softy a man has been eating nothing but fast food, pop, and junk food and never exercising for 8 years. he has gained a huge amount of fat and weight and is very weak from lack of muscle. suddenly, he has a major heart attack. his doctor puts him on a healthy diet and a moderate exercise regimen. he starts to lose weight very slowly, a couple pounds a week, and adding muscle mass. after 3 years he is frustrated by the slow pace of his recovery. he blames his doctor for his poor health and the fact that he does not look like 'the rock.' so he wants to go back to his fast food and soda pop diet and being a couch potato because 'these radical ideas' (exercise and diet) are too slow in bringing back his health. are you completely blind to the fact that the economy tanked under the bush policies? and that the economy is recovering (albeit slowly) under the obama policies? and you want to go back to big macs and coca-cola. that just seems insane. |
||||||
|
Not that I'm a Bush defender per se, but blaming the tanking economy on either president seems wrong to me. It is worth noting that centre-left Europe has also tanked. You might say that Bush failed to regulate the banking system, but he was hardly alone in that. On the subject, I would recommend a book by Ian Stewart, Professor of mathematics at the University of Warwick. It's called 17 equations that changed the world, with a chapter devoted to each one. It's mostly a tour de force of the history of mathematics and physics, but the last chapter is about the Black-Scholes equation, and includes a wonderful description of just how the banking crash happened and why it happened. For a layman of finance such as myself it was extremely helpful. I would very much recommend it if you can find it in the US. |
||||||
|
itchy 1) bush's policies did nothing to help and exacerbated the problem, 2) softy's incessent clammoring that it is obama's fault is ridiculous and needs to be called out for the nonsense it is. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 03-May-12, 07:51 |
Softaire is only repeating the published GOP strategy outlined in December 2008 that I have posted before, to minimize the depth of this type of recession and the extent to which the GOP stonewalling tactics are sabotaging recovery, and claim that Obama should have miraculously pulled the country out of it in a few years, even though the world itself is in a recession. That is not to say Obama could not have done better, but he did far better than Bush would have done. |
||||||
|
Democrats now for years and years) has NOT discussed budgets or passed a budget for 3 years, is simply ridiculous. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 03-May-12, 08:41 |
democratic senators, lieberman was independent. |
||||||
|
dm for three years to produce a budget but the Republicans have stopped them? Can I get you to please answer that with a Yes or a NO? You intend to imply here in the 1A club that it is the GOP that has stopped the Democrats from producing a budget in the Senate for 3 years? Go ahead... I dare you. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 03-May-12, 20:07 |
www.economist.com Parliamentary procedure Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget Feb 15th 2012 by G.I. | WASHINGTON D.C. Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing. In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation: It’s true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate. But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate. Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation. But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to. Does the lack of a budget resolution matter? Jim notes that budget resolutions are supposed to set limits on discretionary spending in appropriations bills and facilitate changes in taxes and entitlements via reconciliation instructions or via allocations to authorizing committees. But nowadays, discretionary spending caps have already been set by the Budget Control Act (which ended the debt ceiling standoff) and there is little or no prospect of cross-party agreement on tax or entitlement policies. Moreover: With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't. The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things. So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture. The fact that the House managed to pass a budget last year, including a major overhaul of Medicare, reflects its different rules that allow it to deem the budget resolution to have taken effect. But it didn't ultimately matter: the provisions in its budget, including the Medicare changes, were not binding on the Senate. Aren't you glad you asked? |
||||||
|
softy |
||||||
|
dmaestro 03-May-12, 20:57 |
|
||||||
|
Z & Dm ... |
||||||
|
Senate Stonewalling budget, let alone vote on one. The Democrats are stonewalling this because they see it as a political liability to show how badly out of balance we are. Basically, they are cowards and liars. And dm is a political, partisan hack that will say any excuse that comes to mind to push his agenda. Link at end, if you want. ***************************************************************** In a stunning backtrack that virtually guarantees Congress for the third year will be unable to produce a budget, Senate Democrats’ top budget writer Tuesday canceled this week’s expected votes on a 2013 fiscal blueprint. Instead, Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, said he will use the next few months to try to breathe life into the shelved 2-year-old Bowles-Simpson deficit commission proposal. Mr. Conrad said he wasn’t going to be able to reach a bipartisan agreement on a budget plan and he decided instead to try to kick-start a longer-term debate. “This is the wrong time to vote in the committee. This is the wrong time to vote on the floor,” Mr. Conrad told reporters as he announced his strategy. “We do need to try to maximize the chance as we get closer to all the tax cuts expiring and the sequester being imposed that we’re ready to act.” He said he will still convene the Budget Committee this week and introduce his plan, but won’t hold any votes or debate any amendments. His move stunned Senate Republicans, who had been preparing amendments for Wednesday and Thursday. “It’s hard to negotiate with somebody who won’t tell you where they are,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, who said Mr. Conrad was breaking a promise he made to debate and vote on a budget. Hanging over the discussion is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who had steadfastly said he would not bring a budget to the floor this year — and who, Republicans said, pressured Mr. Conrad into complying. On Tuesday, Mr. Reid declined to answer specific questions about his strategy but told reporters he had “nothing but confidence for Kent Conrad.” Given the opposition, Mr. Conrad instead decided to try to revive the Bowles-Simpson plan, named after former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, who led a commission that produced a plan for raising taxes and limiting spending — all designed to reduce long-term deficits. Though President Obama established the Bowles-Simpson commission, he rejected its December 2010 proposal, and Democrats who controlled Congress at the time did not bring up it up for a vote. But it has simmered in the background, with lawmakers occasionally saying it should serve as a basis for negotiations — only to see both Democratic and Republican leaders block their efforts. Mr. Conrad, a member of the commission, said the plan needs to be updated, but that his version will lower the debt to 93 percent of gross domestic product by 2022 — it is more than 100 percent now — and would push for changes in Social Security, while preserving Mr. Obama’s health care law. Under Mr. Conrad’s plan, spending would be nearly 22 percent of GDP in 2022 and taxes would be 20.5 percent. Both numbers are well above the average for the past six decades, but the North Dakota Democrat said those are the levels needed to fund the government’s promises. In 2012, spending will account for about 24 percent of GDP and taxes will total about 16 percent. He said starting the debate now on Bowles-Simpson could set the table for a deal at the end of this year, when the federal government’s fiscal picture reaches a crisis point. That’s when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are due to expire, and when automatic spending cuts imposed after last year’s debt deal are scheduled to bite. “I know this is sort of geeky stuff, but the hard reality is that the amount of time it takes to put together these plans is really daunting,” Mr. Conrad said. “This takes weeks and weeks and months and months of effort, and that’s why I think it’s important to begin.” His change in direction earned encouraging words from Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson, who said it marked an advance in the fiscal debate. The Bowles-Simpson framework has earned a sort of cult status among budget watchdog groups for its bipartisan approach and for seeking both tax increases and some limits to the growth of spending. But it has not fared well on Capitol Hill. Last month a bipartisan group in the House offered a version of the plan during the budget debate, but it was defeated by a 382-38 vote. Congress is about to go its third year without passing a budget. During that time debt has ballooned and the government is poised to run its fourth year of trillion-dollar deficits. Senate Democrats say a budget isn’t needed because last year’s debt deal already set maximum discretionary spending numbers. Still, those numbers don’t replace the broader budget document that sets goals for entitlement programs, taxes and discretionary spending for the next decade. House Republicans last month pushed their budget plan through their chamber on a 228-191 vote. Without a companion bill from the Senate, however, there is no chance to negotiate a final agreement. So on Tuesday, House Republicans passed a resolution that orders the chamber’s annual spending bills be written to comply with the House budget. The Senate is working off of a higher top-line spending number based on last year’s debt deal negotiations, meaning the two chambers are writing the 12 annual spending bills at different levels, making it tougher to reconcile them at the end of the year. www.moneynews.com? s=al&promo_code=ED06-1 |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-May-12, 04:15 |
garbage. But you make my point. A bipartisan budget resolution is not doable and given the unacceptable house gop budget crammed on party line votes brinkmanship will again be the norm. There simply are not enough in either party supporting simpson bowles or similar plans because painful concessions are required. Whatever results will not be from budget resolution which isn't necessary. |
||||||
|
chaz the truth is that bush is responsible for over $5 trillion in the deficit while obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion (as of a year ago but projected through 2017) www.washingtonpost.com |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-May-12, 04:38 |
facts are presented. enough is enough. it is simply the norm today. it takes two to tango as they say.let him say waht he wants but to dignify it as an opening to dialogue isn't justified. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-May-12, 04:56 |
increasing proportionally. It is clear many people just want to chhose their own "facts". I accept that this is now the norm on sites like this. |
||||||
|
dm time on garbage." Another brilliant, content-filled reply. (NOT) Rather than argue the facts, you call the content "garbage". I understand that you don't like having it made known what actually did happen... it conflicts with your distortions. The fact is that you are a lying, partisan hack who gets mad when your propaganda is shown to be false. |
||||||
|
when peace across the aisle is not the norm ok while was a comment on our thread, there has been an underlying given that polarization has been increasing in U.S. politics overall. well my sense is that polarization has been the norm in U.S. political history, a polarization with peaks like the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts, and the outbreak of the War Between the States, and that the decreased-polarization which American voters became accustomed to -- That was the aberration. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-May-12, 07:14 |
trend. More information and more discussions will not reverse the trend. Irreconcilable agendas is the new norm, as it was during the peaks referenced. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-May-12, 07:20 |
nothing worth discussing here because no agreement would be possible. You think the budget resolution is important, I do not. Factually, I have shown it isn't. More information will not change anything. |
||||||
|
not argue against what actually happened. And, I state once again that the failure by the Democratic controlled Senate to pass or discuss any budget for three years is directly associated with three years of $1.5 Trillion deficit spending which has raised our national debt over $5 Trillion. These continuing budget resolutions have allowed BO and the Democrats to spend the country into the brink of disaster. There just isn't any argument that can be made against that. It is as if BO and the liberals want the country to fail. The policies all point to it: pending financial collapse, monetary policy that will result in hyper-inflation, no recovery from the economic recession, no recovery from unemployment, high energy costs, low energy availability, investments in failing companies with loan guarantees to BO contributors, |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-May-12, 07:56 |
Phony budget resolutions that mean nothing are irrelevant. Where are the compromises conservatives are seriously willing to offer? There are none... |
||||||
| |||||||
