View Full Version : Let Senate get 'off their ***' this time
soonercruiser
2/26/2013, 10:55 PM
:onthego:
Sometimes politics is very entertaining.
Especially when the truth is verbalized in "non-PC"!
awK1USbi6ao#t=1s
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/john-boehner-on-sequestration-senators-should-get-off-their-***-88084.html
StoopTroup
2/26/2013, 10:58 PM
Harry Reid Comment to follow....
cleller
2/26/2013, 11:03 PM
Its like the Senate doesn't even exist in this deal. Do you ever see anyone but Boehner?
Yeah, the whole lot are a mess, but shouldn't someone be a leader and pick up a phone? Don't we elect a man to accept that type of responsibility? What a disgrace.
This is the new normal around here. Seems more like something that should be playing out in Russia or Greece.
soonercruiser
2/26/2013, 11:05 PM
Harry Reid Comment to follow....
Ahhhhh. He would have to ...."get off his fat ***" to respond!
:beguiled:
StoopTroup
2/26/2013, 11:14 PM
Its like the Senate doesn't even exist in this deal. Do you ever see anyone but Boehner?
Yeah, the whole lot are a mess, but shouldn't someone be a leader and pick up a phone? Don't we elect a man to accept that type of responsibility? What a disgrace.
This is the new normal around here. Seems more like something that should be playing out in Russia or Greece.
I was watching The House on CSPAN today and everyone who was worried about the sequestration was taking time explaining their disappointment in the Republican Split on just letting this happen or they were asking the Speaker why he didn't just ask for them all to go into a room and hash out a solution and keep them all in there until they came up with it.
I saw Boehner get so upset that he had another Rep take his place as Speaker so he could go to a podium and restate his and his parties position on the sequestration. It was like he was getting tired of them voicing their opinions.
I just wonder how long Boehner and his supporters could hold on if they really had to attend the old "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" arguments and stating positions and not being able to just vote on going Home or stretching things out until they could take a week or two off?
IMO this is why we have seen so many folks now stay in office until they were 90 and unable to even perform a 2 minute speech without a mental breakdown.
These folks are all becoming worthless slackers and I mean that no matter what the party is but right now...it's Boehner who is the Majority so IMHO....it's him that gets the bulk of the wrath that is a worthless POS.
sappstuf
2/26/2013, 11:23 PM
I was watching The House on CSPAN today and everyone who was worried about the sequestration was taking time explaining their disappointment in the Republican Split on just letting this happen or they were asking the Speaker why he didn't just ask for them all to go into a room and hash out a solution and keep them all in there until they came up with it.
I saw Boehner get so upset that he had another Rep take his place as Speaker so he could go to a podium and restate his and his parties position on the sequestration. It was like he was getting tired of them voicing their opinions.
I just wonder how long Boehner and his supporters could hold on if they really had to attend the old "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" arguments and stating positions and not being able to just vote on going Home or stretching things out until they could take a week or two off?
IMO this is why we have seen so many folks now stay in office until they were 90 and unable to even perform a 2 minute speech without a mental breakdown.
These folks are all becoming worthless slackers and I mean that no matter what the party is but right now...it's Boehner who is the Majority so IMHO....it's him that gets the bulk of the wrath that is a worthless POS.
The House has passed 2 alternatives for the sequestration cuts.. 2. The Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution in over 4 years in violation of the law every year. In fact, if the Dems would have just passed a budget, sequestration would probably not be happening.
Time will not look kindly on Harry Reid's time running the Senate. Dereliction of duty is too light a phrase to describe what he has done.
StoopTroup
2/27/2013, 12:05 AM
The House has passed 2 alternatives for the sequestration cuts.. 2. The Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution in over 4 years in violation of the law every year. In fact, if the Dems would have just passed a budget, sequestration would probably not be happening.
Time will not look kindly on Harry Reid's time running the Senate. Dereliction of duty is too light a phrase to describe what he has done.
I know many of you think Reid is somehow getting a pass, but I don't know how you can keep on avoiding that Boehner isn't just as much to blame as Reid. I think if you read what I said...I was talking about watching the House today...not the Senate. What I saw was The house's dereliction of Duty and IMHO Boehner is one of the biggest reason's the House hasn't joined in with creating an answer to what is a really ****ty deal that is going to happen. Nowhere did I give the Senate a Pass.
I was watching The House on CSPAN today and everyone who was worried about the sequestration was taking time explaining their disappointment in the Republican Split on just letting this happen or they were asking the Speaker why he didn't just ask for them all to go into a room and hash out a solution and keep them all in there until they came up with it.
I saw Boehner get so upset that he had another Rep take his place as Speaker so he could go to a podium and restate his and his parties position on the sequestration. It was like he was getting tired of them voicing their opinions.
I just wonder how long Boehner and his supporters could hold on if they really had to attend the old "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" arguments and stating positions and not being able to just vote on going Home or stretching things out until they could take a week or two off?
IMO this is why we have seen so many folks now stay in office until they were 90 and unable to even perform a 2 minute speech without a mental breakdown.
These folks are all becoming worthless slackers and I mean that no matter what the party is but right now...it's Boehner who is the Majority so IMHO....it's him that gets the bulk of the wrath that is a worthless POS.
With all due respect, read your own post. Wouldn't you be tired of trying to fix the problem only to be ignored and then blamed for not fixing the problem?
sappstuf
2/27/2013, 12:15 AM
I know many of you think Reid is somehow getting a pass, but I don't know how you can keep on avoiding that Boehner isn't just as much to blame as Reid. I think if you read what I said...I was talking about watching the House today...not the Senate. What I saw was The house's dereliction of Duty and IMHO Boehner is one of the biggest reason's the House hasn't joined in with creating an answer to what is a really ****ty deal that is going to happen. Nowhere did I give the Senate a Pass.
There is no dereliction of duty in the House... They have passed alternatives. That means they have done something. They have passed budgets as required. The Senate has done none of that?
Reid is 100% getting a pass. Look at this question from a Washington Post poll yesterday:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/wapo-pew-question.jpg
See anything missing? It is the body of government that hasn't passed a budget in years and no sequestration alternatives have even been brought up for a vote.
I know many of you think Reid is somehow getting a pass, but I don't know how you can keep on avoiding that Boehner isn't just as much to blame as Reid. I think if you read what I said...I was talking about watching the House today...not the Senate. What I saw was The house's dereliction of Duty and IMHO Boehner is one of the biggest reason's the House hasn't joined in with creating an answer to what is a really ****ty deal that is going to happen. Nowhere did I give the Senate a Pass.
Wow.
StoopTroup
2/27/2013, 12:19 AM
There is no dereliction of duty in the House... They have passed alternatives. That means they have done something. They have passed budgets as required. The Senate has done none of that?
Reid is 100% getting a pass. Look at this question from a Washington Post poll yesterday:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/wapo-pew-question.jpg
See anything missing? It is the body of government that hasn't passed a budget in years and no sequestration alternatives have even been brought up for a vote.
So you say but there were Reps at the podium today calling him out that there is. I'm not just making this **** up. Go check the record.
So you say but there were Reps at the podium today calling him out that there is. I'm not just making this **** up. Go check the record.
Link to the budget?
sappstuf
2/27/2013, 12:31 AM
Link to the budget?
Below are the links to all the Senate Budgets that have been passed the last four years and to Obama's FY14 Budget proposal that is also required by law to be submitted to Congress on the first day of February.
StoopTroup
2/27/2013, 12:45 AM
Link to the budget?
Not the budget. The record. Every time one of the Reps makes their way to the podium they hand their statement to the recorder to put into the record which is accessible to us all. I'm not in the mood to hold your hand to something you should know about by taking a Government Class. You can find it. Lets call it Homework.
Hint: One Minute Speeches
sappstuf
2/27/2013, 01:18 AM
Not the budget. The record. Every time one of the Reps makes their way to the podium they hand their statement to the recorder to put into the record which is accessible to us all. I'm not in the mood to hold your hand to something you should know about by taking a Government Class. You can find it. Lets call it Homework.
Hint: One Minute Speeches
For a thread that is about the Senate, you sure are doing everything in your power to not talk about the Senate...
Boehner is 100% right and it is a question that Dems will flee from like the plague. Why couldn't Obama and the Democratically controlled Senate passed something in regards to this or a budget in general that only requires 51 votes? Why?
StoopTroup
2/27/2013, 01:24 AM
For a thread that is about the Senate, you sure are doing everything in your power to not talk about the Senate...
Boehner is 100% right and it is a question that Dems will flee from like the plague. Why couldn't Obama and the Democratically controlled Senate passed something in regards to this or a budget in general that only requires 51 votes? Why?
And....as part of Congress....why couldn't the House he runs do it?
Why go to the trouble when the House just passes these continuing sequestration type fixes once they are given a direction? Boehner and his bunch continue to avoid real longterm answers. It's obvious they are just looking for a way to impeach or discredit another POTUS.
Not the budget. The record. Every time one of the Reps makes their way to the podium they hand their statement to the recorder to put into the record which is accessible to us all. I'm not in the mood to hold your hand to something you should know about by taking a Government Class. You can find it. Lets call it Homework.
Hint: One Minute Speeches
You mean the budget that is required by the constitution? I can do my homework but finding something that doesn't exist is a fool's errand.
olevetonahill
2/27/2013, 01:39 AM
You mean the budget that is required by the constitution? I can do my homework but finding something that doesn't exist is a fool's errand.
You gotta watch C-span all day then you can unnerstan how all this Gov. Shat werks.
I learned years ago watchin the Mickey Mouse club show.
sappstuf
2/27/2013, 04:16 AM
And....as part of Congress....why couldn't the House he runs do it?
Why go to the trouble when the House just passes these continuing sequestration type fixes once they are given a direction? Boehner and his bunch continue to avoid real longterm answers. It's obvious they are just looking for a way to impeach or discredit another POTUS.
They have done it, that is the entire point. Sequestration has been coming for 16 months.. They didn't wait for direction, the passed 2 seperate bills.
The next step is for the Senate to act... They have not... In years.
okie52
2/27/2013, 07:07 AM
They have done it, that is the entire point. Sequestration has been coming for 16 months.. They didn't wait for direction, the passed 2 seperate bills.
The next step is for the Senate to act... They have not... In years.
Good lord some people are dense.
cleller
2/27/2013, 08:31 AM
In another point. None of us (likely) voted for Boehner. The overwhelming majority of the country never cast a vote for Boehner.
The (simple-hah) majority of the country DID vote for Obama. Shouldn't he be the one we turn to in times of crisis? Is he not (supposed to be) the Chief Executive?
He sure doesn't behave like one. He'll talk anywhere there is a camera, but not to his own congress.
badger
2/27/2013, 09:50 AM
Man, when did public servitude become such a chore? Back in the good ole days, all you had to do was decide which special interests were special enough to warrant a big serving of pork. What's with all this deadline this and cut spending that? :P
FaninAma
2/27/2013, 10:58 AM
Ahhhhh. He would have to ...."get off his fat ***" to respond!
:beguiled:
It has been my experience that most cachectic cadavers do not have fat asses.
FaninAma
2/27/2013, 11:48 AM
In another point. None of us (likely) voted for Boehner. The overwhelming majority of the country never cast a vote for Boehner.
The (simple-hah) majority of the country DID vote for Obama. Shouldn't he be the one we turn to in times of crisis? Is he not (supposed to be) the Chief Executive?
He sure doesn't behave like one. He'll talk anywhere there is a camera, but not to his own congress.
No way. Wasn't it the Speaker of the House who in December of 1941 gave the country that stirring speech to console and motivate the country after the Pearl Harbor attack?
You hit on one of my major problems with this President. I understand that politics by their nature are partisan but at some point the person who holds the office of the Presidency has to leave the partisanship behind and lead the country. Obama understands only one way to govern.....the way he learned to do it in the Chicago political machine. And if the progressives on the board want to point their boney fingers at Bush they need to not waste their or my time. I will not even attempt to defend the idiot and his neocon puppet masters.
badger
2/27/2013, 11:50 AM
President Obama is leaving office in 2016 (technically 2017) whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, so he might as well work to cement his legacy, whatever direction he's going for.
Does he want to be a uniter? A hopey changey type? A hero of the Democratic Party?
In any event, clock's ticking.
StoopTroup
2/27/2013, 12:37 PM
President Obama is leaving office in 2016 (technically 2017) whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, so he might as well work to cement his legacy, whatever direction he's going for.
Does he want to be a uniter? A hopey changey type? A hero of the Democratic Party?
In any event, clock's ticking.
I was thinking he was trying to keep our Economy going and in doing so....keep what happened after the Bush Administration from happening. You know...a depression. And yes...the clock is still ticking.
StoopTroup
2/27/2013, 12:43 PM
In another point. None of us (likely) voted for Boehner. The overwhelming majority of the country never cast a vote for Boehner.
The (simple-hah) majority of the country DID vote for Obama. Shouldn't he be the one we turn to in times of crisis? Is he not (supposed to be) the Chief Executive?
He sure doesn't behave like one. He'll talk anywhere there is a camera, but not to his own congress.
Maybe we should put out the Mitt Alert. Seems he had a real grasp of what the American People wanted. And speaking of cachectic cadavers...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/rf/image_r/Boston/2011-2020/2012/06/05/BostonGlobe.com/National/Images/Battleground%20Pennsylvania.JPEG-0b881.r.jpg
Bourbon St Sooner
2/27/2013, 02:58 PM
I was thinking he was trying to keep our Economy going and in doing so....keep what happened after the Bush Administration from happening. You know...a depression. And yes...the clock is still ticking.
He's doing a good job of keeping that -.2% growth rate going. That's the Obama recovery.
StoopTroup
2/27/2013, 03:18 PM
He's doing a good job of keeping that -.2% growth rate going. That's the Obama recovery.
And yet he got elected twice.
cleller
2/27/2013, 03:31 PM
And yet he got elected twice.
Now we can circle right back to the thread about what the government buys us now, though without the funding to pay for it.
I'm sure that says something about what politicians think votes are worth; more than money can buy.
soonercruiser
2/27/2013, 10:23 PM
In another point. None of us (likely) voted for Boehner. The overwhelming majority of the country never cast a vote for Boehner.
The (simple-hah) majority of the country DID vote for Obama. Shouldn't he be the one we turn to in times of crisis? Is he not (supposed to be) the Chief Executive?
He sure doesn't behave like one. He'll talk anywhere there is a camera, but not to his own congress.
What??
You don't like him bringing community organizing to the WH?
He's a career trouble maker! Not a President or leader of any kind!
It's that simple.
soonercruiser
2/27/2013, 10:25 PM
And yet he got elected twice.
47% of his voters are "in the bag", "wagon", whatever.
I heard a caller on local talk radio that had a good explanation...
ADHD voters: ADHD President.
:applause:
StoopTroup
2/28/2013, 10:28 PM
47% of his voters are "in the bag", "wagon", whatever.
I heard a caller on local talk radio that had a good explanation...
ADHD voters: ADHD President.
:applause:
Funny...
Is this where I'm supposed to ask...."Link or it's not true?" :D
diverdog
2/28/2013, 11:34 PM
47% of his voters are "in the bag", "wagon", whatever.
I heard a caller on local talk radio that had a good explanation...
ADHD voters: ADHD President.
:applause:
i am pretty sure you are a 47%er:
.A July 2011 study by the Tax Policy Center found that 46.4% of Americans -- Romney rounded up -- either pay no federal income taxes or get more back from the government than they pay. That study was frequently cited in the Republican primaries that led to Romney's nomination for president.
entitlements are only out of control if it's not him that's entitled to them
I love how a failure to pass a budget and a push towards sequestration has morphed into...Shots at Mitt Romney and Veteran's benefits. Interesting stuff for sure.
can we really afford for a retired veteran of the Dental Wars to live better than most people with jobs?
can we really afford for a retired veteran of the Dental Wars to live better than most people with jobs?
My answer is yes. We have more than enough money for these types of benefits if we focused on the abuses that need scrutiny. I do think it is interesting that you think "most" people make less than military retirees.
By the way, operating the military requires a great number of people who do not serve in combat. Consider it expenses below the COGS.
how much would you spend enforcing said abuses?
and i didn't say military retirees, i was talking about cruiser.
and yeah, i'm fairly confident in my appraisal :D
I would spend enough to justify the means. The problem isn't finding the abuse, it is having the political will to cut off the deadbeats.
Is cruiser not a military retiree?
In re-reading your post, I see you used "a military retiree." Comparing a career military person to a kid from college is silly, for example. Would you stand by your appraisal if you used any sort of normalization?
i said "a retired veteran of the Dental Wars" not just "a military retiree" i'd say that's pretty specific
what does double dipping really do for the country?
paying multiple pensions on top of social security until someone dies is a pretty big liability since people tend to live a long time these days. when a very large portion of the population will soon be too old to work, and not ready to die, it's going to be interesting.
i said "a retired veteran of the Dental Wars" not just "a military retiree" i'd say that's pretty specific
I wanted to address the dental wars dig. It is an overly simplistic view. You left off quite a few qualifiers if you are going to be that specific, which is why I asked about some normalization. Would you compare the compensation of a 30 year private sector dentists favorable, or unfavorably, to that of said retiree?
To address your addition to your post, I would say that you are intentionally creating a smokescreen. Social security and military benefits are far from the same thing. Social Security was very much intentioned to be an "as needed" benefit. It has become much more than that, but it doesn't change the original intent. Military benefits are promised benefits. In other words, you get what we said you would get.
If a military retiree pays into social security, then yes, they deserve that benefit in as much as anyone else does. If they never worked in a private sector job, they not only don't deserve this benefit, they do not qualify for this benefit.
Having a job that pays a pension and then taking another job that has an additional benefit isn't double dipping. Period.
When people are dying ,or more specifically how long they are living, isn't the fault of those who served our country in administrative jobs. I wonder when you will stop taking benefits because you have lived too long. Care to pick an age today?
Good grief, maligning our Veterans aside, we still don't have a budget. As many diversions as there are, it doesn't change this fact. There is a constitutional requirement that continues to be ignored.
diverdog
3/1/2013, 07:19 AM
To address your addition to your post, I would say that you are intentionally creating a smokescreen. Social security and military benefits are far from the same thing. Social Security was very much intentioned to be an "as needed" benefit. It has become much more than that, but it doesn't change the original intent. Military benefits are promised benefits. In other words, you get what we said you would get.
If a military retiree pays into social security, then yes, they deserve that benefit in as much as anyone else does. If they never worked in a private sector job, they not only don't deserve this benefit, they do not qualify for this benefit.
Having a job that pays a pension and then taking another job that has an additional benefit isn't double dipping. Period.
When people are dying ,or more specifically how long they are living, isn't the fault of those who served our country in administrative jobs. I wonder when you will stop taking benefits because you have lived too long. Care to pick an age today?
scout:
i do not know if you saw my post where government pensions (not SS) have exceeded what is paid out in SS. It is a huge issue. We can no longer afford paying retirements at age 38. Nor can we afford paying a retirement at 38, a second double dip at 60 and SS. It is especially unfair when no one in the private sector gets these types of benefits. Think how much better your lifestyle would be if your did not have to sock money into a 401k.
Good grief, maligning our Veterans aside, we still don't have a budget. As many diversions as there are, it doesn't change this fact. There is a constitutional requirement that continues to be ignored.
i'm maligning one veteran that threw out the 47% number that Romney was stupid to use, and includes said veteran in the first place. that's like an Obama supporter asking which of the 57 states you live in
and if you are getting a military retirement, maybe you should be exempted from SS and not eligible for other state or federal pensions?
it's not like i don't like veterans, it's just that we are talking about gaming the system and it's expensive and at this point not really sustainable, especially with the rate of war mongering that we like to do
Harry Beanbag
3/1/2013, 02:02 PM
and if you are getting a military retirement, maybe you should be exempted from SS...?
As long as they are refunded every dime they were forced to pay into the system, I might support that.
well, i mean paying into it in the first place as well. like once they are in the private sector
paying multiple pensions on top of social security until someone dies is a pretty big liability since people tend to live a long time these days. when a very large portion of the population will soon be too old to work, and not ready to die, it's going to be interesting.
obama lies, granny dies? :eek:
Seriously though, I could see it going one of two ways:
1- Old folks, as the en masse voting populace, get everything, lest the politicians get voted out
2- Old folks get rationed healthcare, based on availability, with priority given to people under a certain age. As healthcare is already not readily available to all, healthcare for older people will usually not be available
As it stands right now, No. 1 is more likely. However, with more younger and non-retired participating and paying attention to politics, I could see a shift.
we aren't even talking healthcare yet. that's another ballooning problem
pphilfran
3/1/2013, 04:10 PM
we aren't even talking healthcare yet. that's another ballooning problem
Already resolved...Affordable Healthcare Act...
Already resolved...Affordable Healthcare Act...----I hope you are kidding Phil
pphilfran
3/1/2013, 04:54 PM
----I hope you are kidding Phil
me, kid?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.