If it is such a great deal and a no-brainer, why wouldn't the pipeline stand on it's own?
Instead of taking constant vacations the House and Senate should spend thier time debating/passing bills individually. I'm sick of these package deals that kill perfectly good bills. Both sides do it and nothing productive gets done.
Cone_Junky wrote: If it is such a great deal and a no-brainer, why wouldn't the pipeline stand on it's own? Instead of taking constant vacations the House and Senate should spend thier time debating/passing bills individually. I'm sick of these package deals that kill perfectly good bills. Both sides do it and nothing productive gets done.
If it's such a terrible deal, why won't Obama make a decision instead of pushing it until after the election?
Certianly your partisan lines will allow you to see that.
I agree, let issues stand on their own and pass/fail. Unfortunately, this where we are since both sides refuse to work together and compromise.
Graefin10 wrote: There is one good thing that I can see about all the above. The American people (in general) are becoming much more aware and much less gullible. Voting won't fix it! So what will fix it?
Tired of windbags dicking up your country? Let em know how you feel...
If those dickheads dont listen, kick the bums out...
worked before, should work again.
Im just sayin...
Seems some of you guys don't pay attention to how politics ACTUALLY works.
I'd say most don't
Cone_Junky wrote: If it is such a great deal and a no-brainer, why wouldn't the pipeline stand on it's own? Instead of taking constant vacations the House and Senate should spend thier time debating/passing bills individually. I'm sick of these package deals that kill perfectly good bills. Both sides do it and nothing productive gets done.
We could also say if the tax cut extension was so good why doesn't it stand on it's own. That's simply not the way it's done and is the reason why people keep pushing for a line item veto.
They package a jillion other things together (have you actually read all 2000 pages of Obamacare - it's the poster child for this) and then require to to approve them all or get none. Then they do a slanderous campaign like Republicans are refusing to give you people the tax cuts you deserved
carguy123 wrote: Then they do a slanderous campaign like Republicans are refusing to give you people the tax cuts you deserved
Why does anyone deserve tax cuts? We are how far in the hole?
I kinda like Tuna's idea. Seems like more reality-based representation for most people. Can also see that disintegrating into vote for me interwebs campaigns. I don't think minimum wage for politicians would help - many are already multi-millionaires or spending millions of dollars to gain a $150k/year job - why would anyone do that if there wasn't an expectation for a return on the investment? You have to get the back-end money out of it.
Then again, a government can only get away with what the people will tolerate and apparently, the people aren't pissed enough or hurting enough to demand any meaningful changes.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
Because its our money not theirs. They take more than enough to operate the government. The problem is they spend too much.
oldtin wrote: the people aren't pissed enough or hurting enough to demand any meaningful changes.
This.
ThePhranc wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: Because its our money not theirs. They take more than enough to operate the government. The problem is they spend too much.
Yes. I agree but the simple fact is that it is going to require both cutting and increased tax revenue to get out of this hole because both parties won't ever agree on cutting enough to get out of this hole. I am hoping for more cutting then increases in taxes but I am also realistic about it and I realize that we aren't going to get out of this hole by cutting alone due to the way politics works.
Tom Heath wrote:oldtin wrote: the people aren't pissed enough or hurting enough to demand any meaningful changes.This.
Maybe we should all gather up on city property and protest bad politics and the bias towards the rich?
Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums.
Now what?
Cone_Junky wrote:Tom Heath wrote:Maybe we should all gather up on city property and protest bad politics and the bias towards the rich? Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums. Now what?oldtin wrote: the people aren't pissed enough or hurting enough to demand any meaningful changes.This.
There was a lot of negativity and that is what takes the focus of the news. Taking a dump on the bank steps. Beating up a guy for not giving you free food like he did last week. Those WERE bums. Of course thats not everybody.
There are better ways that avoid including those bums that ruin it for everybody.
93EXCivic wrote:ThePhranc wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: Because its our money not theirs. They take more than enough to operate the government. The problem is they spend too much.Yes. I agree but the simple fact is that it is going to require both cutting and increased tax revenue to get out of this hole because both parties won't ever agree on cutting enough to get out of this hole. I am hoping for more cutting then increases in taxes but I am also realistic about it and I realize that we aren't going to get out of this hole by cutting alone due to the way politics works.
I agree.. if you cut to the bone and are still not in the black, you need to raise revenue
Cone_Junky wrote: Maybe we should all gather up on city property and protest bad politics and the bias towards the rich? Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums. Now what?
That's because a lot of the kids in NYC were exactly that.
http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html
There were thousands of protestors, a couple of bad apples doesn't make the point invalid. Yet the Conservative media machine (borrowed that from the repugs
) deemed them losers. In fact there was literally two sides to the protestors in the park in NY. Hippies on one side and middle class/educated on the other. What side did Fox "News" make all thier broadcasts from?
So only conservatives have valid protests? Tea Party anyone?
93EXCivic wrote:ThePhranc wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: Because its our money not theirs. They take more than enough to operate the government. The problem is they spend too much.Yes. I agree but the simple fact is that it is going to require both cutting and increased tax revenue to get out of this hole because both parties won't ever agree on cutting enough to get out of this hole. I am hoping for more cutting then increases in taxes but I am also realistic about it and I realize that we aren't going to get out of this hole by cutting alone due to the way politics works.
You can it all with spending cuts and even add tax cuts on top of it. But that would stop all the pork and socialism.
Cone_Junky wrote: Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums.
Right, like the term "tea baggers" isn't full of mockery and ridicule.
ir became mockable when the fanatics took over. I went to a few tea party meetings when they first started. They were full of energy and anger about how the government was doing things. At that time, there were republicans, democrats, and independants there. We all had something in common.
I stopped going when it got taken over by the fanatics and any mention of a middleground was immediatly talked over or shouted down
In reply to Osterkraut:
You mean all the people protesting entitlements that wouldn't dare let you touch thier entitlements?
Just like medical insurance, if the old people didn't save enough for retirement and medical coverage then we should just let them die poor.
(pause for conservative applause)
Let gays forfeit thier life for an unjust war?
(pause for conservative booing)
mad_machine wrote:93EXCivic wrote:I agree.. if you cut to the bone and are still not in the black, you need to raise revenueThePhranc wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: Because its our money not theirs. They take more than enough to operate the government. The problem is they spend too much.Yes. I agree but the simple fact is that it is going to require both cutting and increased tax revenue to get out of this hole because both parties won't ever agree on cutting enough to get out of this hole. I am hoping for more cutting then increases in taxes but I am also realistic about it and I realize that we aren't going to get out of this hole by cutting alone due to the way politics works.
Historically, you'll be hard-pressed to find incidents where promised budget cuts were actually implemented; the DC-speak weaksauce definition of "cut" doesn't count. Until there is a concerted effort to FIRST address spending any revenue increase will just go straight to the beast's feeding trough.
A balanced-budget amendment would be a good start, but majorities in both parties won't support the idea.
mad_machine wrote: ir became mockable when the fanatics took over. I went to a few tea party meetings when they first started. They were full of energy and anger about how the government was doing things. At that time, there were republicans, democrats, and independants there. We all had something in common. I stopped going when it got taken over by the fanatics and any mention of a middleground was immediatly talked over or shouted down
I agree with this. Same thing happen to the OWS.
93EXCivic wrote:carguy123 wrote: Then they do a slanderous campaign like Republicans are refusing to give you people the tax cuts you deservedWhy does anyone deserve tax cuts? We are how far in the hole?
Wow, you must be a Republican.
carguy123 wrote:93EXCivic wrote:Wow, you must be a Republican.carguy123 wrote: Then they do a slanderous campaign like Republicans are refusing to give you people the tax cuts you deservedWhy does anyone deserve tax cuts? We are how far in the hole?
I am guessing that was scarasm earlier. And no I am not a Republican.
Osterkraut wrote:Cone_Junky wrote: Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums.Right, like the term "tea baggers" isn't full of mockery and ridicule.
Thats what some called themselves before they realized the mistake.
Cone_Junky wrote: There were thousands of protestors, a couple of bad apples doesn't make the point invalid. Yet the Conservative media machine (borrowed that from the repugs
You obivously didn't even read the link, or completely missed the point.
The point was not that protestors were arrested, it's that the vast majority of those who were arrested live SIGNIFICANTLY above the avg.
Kinda hard to claim your the 99% when your measureably more well off than average.
You'll need to log in to post.
