Discussion:
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
(too old to reply)
MattB
2012-09-14 22:55:40 UTC
Permalink
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report

Read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Congress-of-Devastating-3866414.php

Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report to
Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the budget
in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from defense
and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes an $11
billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.

Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job creation
at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight percent for
43 months.

Federal Deficit

The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which would
make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up in
the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the past
four years.

At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.

Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration” by
refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the report
said.

‘Wrong Choices’

“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto the
middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that paring
the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to national
security, domestic investments and core government functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study released
last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.

Defense Contractors

The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.

Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.

Debt Savings

Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions will
have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need for the
President to work with congressional Republicans to replace these
destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next nine
years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it allows
lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced interest
payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would amount to $216
billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense mandatory
programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related mandatory
programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.


Read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Congress-of-Devastating-3866414.php


*************************

Personally I blame both parties for this. The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
wy
2012-09-14 23:15:37 UTC
Permalink
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report to
Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the budget
in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from defense
and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes an $11
billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.
Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job creation
at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight percent for
43 months.
Federal Deficit
The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which would
make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up in
the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the past
four years.
At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.
Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration” by
refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the report
said.
‘Wrong Choices’
“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto the
middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that paring
the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to national
security, domestic investments and core government functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study released
last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.
Defense Contractors
The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.
Debt Savings
Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions will
have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need for the
President to work with congressional Republicans to replace these
destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next nine
years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it allows
lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced interest
payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would amount to $216
billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense mandatory
programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related mandatory
programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
*************************
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year, actually
reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as you may recall,
or should recall, at the very last minute Boner balked and killed it
when Obama pressed for some additional tax increases on the wealthy to
bring in extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts. So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more. The blame goes to Repugnants
for wanting to get it their way without giving up their way. Now
you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll start taking place in
January as a result of that impasse created by Boner and gang.
MattB
2012-09-14 23:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by MattB
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report to
Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the budget
in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from defense
and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes an $11
billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.
Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job creation
at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight percent for
43 months.
Federal Deficit
The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which would
make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up in
the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the past
four years.
At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.
Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration” by
refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the report
said.
‘Wrong Choices’
“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto the
middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that paring
the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to national
security, domestic investments and core government functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study released
last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.
Defense Contractors
The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.
Debt Savings
Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions will
have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need for the
President to work with congressional Republicans to replace these
destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next nine
years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it allows
lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced interest
payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would amount to $216
billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense mandatory
programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related mandatory
programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
*************************
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year, actually
reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as you may recall,
or should recall, at the very last minute Boner balked and killed it
when Obama pressed for some additional tax increases on the wealthy to
bring in extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts. So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more. The blame goes to Repugnants
for wanting to get it their way without giving up their way. Now
you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll start taking place in
January as a result of that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
wy
2012-09-14 23:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by wy
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report to
Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the budget
in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from defense
and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes an $11
billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.
Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job creation
at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight percent for
43 months.
Federal Deficit
The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which would
make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up in
the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the past
four years.
At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.
Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration” by
refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the report
said.
‘Wrong Choices’
“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto the
middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that paring
the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to national
security, domestic investments and core government functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study released
last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.
Defense Contractors
The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.
Debt Savings
Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions will
have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need for the
President to work with congressional Republicans to replace these
destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next nine
years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it allows
lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced interest
payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would amount to $216
billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense mandatory
programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related mandatory
programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
*************************
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year, actually
reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as you may recall,
or should recall, at the very last minute Boner balked and killed it
when Obama pressed for some additional tax increases on the wealthy to
bring in extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to Repugnants
for wanting to get it their way without giving up their way.  Now
you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll start taking place in
January as a result of that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
John Doe
2012-09-15 00:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and
Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as
you may recall, or should recall, at the very last minute
Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for some
additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in extra
revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So the cuts
were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to
Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without giving up
their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll
start taking place in January as a result of that impasse
created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.

Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid talk
about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I wonder if
that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing amendments
to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid continued with
(paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because Republicans were
going to offer bad amendments".

Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack of
compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
wy
2012-09-15 01:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and
Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as
you may recall, or should recall, at the very last minute
Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for some
additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in extra
revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So the cuts
were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to
Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without giving up
their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll
start taking place in January as a result of that impasse
created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid talk
about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I wonder if
that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing amendments
to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid continued with
(paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because Republicans were
going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack of
compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments? Yep, you got it - Repugnants.
Hence, filling the tree to prevent bad amendments from going
through. But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
John Doe
2012-09-15 01:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to use
it.
wy
2012-09-15 02:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that. The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill. Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they got
on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to use
it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
wy
2012-09-15 02:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they got
on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to use
it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it. You're going to have to provide the exact
link. In the meantime, this was published just today:

"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.

The deal created a special bipartisan committee, immediately nicknamed
the “Supercommittee’' that was given a November deadline for coming up
with a plan for $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years that
would go to Congress for an up or down vote. If no plan was passed,
“automatic’' spending cuts of that size, including reductions in
military spending, would be imposed through a process known as
sequestration. The committee failed to reach agreement.

Unless Mr. Obama and a lame-duck Congress can reach agreement, all of
the Bush-era tax cuts will expire on Dec. 31, along with Obama
stimulus measures like the payroll-tax holiday, just as the deep
“sequestration’' cuts in federal spending would be kicking in — an
event that the Congressional Budget Office predicted would probably
put the economy back into recession."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html
NoBody
2012-09-16 18:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they got
on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to use
it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it. You're going to have to provide the exact
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
3184 Dead
2012-09-16 21:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and
Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as
you may recall, or should recall, at the very last minute
Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for some
additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in extra
revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So the cuts
were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to
Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without giving up
their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget cuts
that'll start taking place in January as a result of that
impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid talk
about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I wonder if
that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing amendments
to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid continued with
(paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because Republicans were
going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they got
on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you "heard"
for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to
use it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it. You're going to have to provide the exact link.
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit
Post by NoBody
reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after conservatives
rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the deal
that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
NoBody
2012-09-17 10:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by NoBody
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and
Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as
you may recall, or should recall, at the very last minute
Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for some
additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in extra
revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So the cuts
were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to
Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without giving up
their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget cuts
that'll start taking place in January as a result of that
impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid talk
about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I wonder if
that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing amendments
to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid continued with
(paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because Republicans were
going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they got
on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you "heard"
for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to
use it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it. You're going to have to provide the exact link.
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a ?grand bargain?' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit
Post by NoBody
reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after conservatives
rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the deal
that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
3184 Dead
2012-09-17 14:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by MattB
Post by NoBody
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they
got on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his
inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you "heard"
for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to
use it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it. You're going to have to provide the exact
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a ?grand bargain?' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit
Post by NoBody
Post by wy
reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-17 15:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
NoBody
2012-09-18 10:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
3184 Dead
2012-09-18 14:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-18 15:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Literally hours away from the loss of those unemployed benefits

Obama's left was pissed at him "caving in" to the madwhackoffs.
NoBody
2012-09-19 10:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Literally hours away from the loss of those unemployed benefits
Obama's left was pissed at him "caving in" to the madwhackoffs.
Cite?
3184 Dead
2012-09-19 15:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Literally hours away from the loss of those unemployed benefits
Obama's left was pissed at him "caving in" to the madwhackoffs.
Cite?
I was pissed at him.
NoBody
2012-09-20 10:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Literally hours away from the loss of those unemployed benefits
Obama's left was pissed at him "caving in" to the madwhackoffs.
Cite?
I was pissed at him.
That wasn't the claim now was it? You also didn't cite the claim
about what the Republicans insisted upon.
NoBody
2012-09-21 10:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Literally hours away from the loss of those unemployed benefits
Obama's left was pissed at him "caving in" to the madwhackoffs.
Cite?
I was pissed at him.
That wasn't the claim now was it? You also didn't cite the claim
about what the Republicans insisted upon.
<zippy-crickets.wav> Apparently there are no honest libs around here.
NoBody
2012-09-19 10:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
3184 Dead
2012-09-19 16:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
Just about any newspaper from the second half of 2011.

Do you need me to prove India actually exists, too?
NoBody
2012-09-20 10:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
Just about any newspaper from the second half of 2011.
Then show me some. Libs always expect someone else to do their
homework for them.
3184 Dead
2012-09-20 14:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame
Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
Just about any newspaper from the second half of 2011.
Then show me some. Libs always expect someone else to do their homework
for them.
No, no, Steve. You go first. Does lack of government funding cost jobs,
or is government incapable of job creation?
NoBody
2012-09-21 10:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame
Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
Just about any newspaper from the second half of 2011.
Then show me some. Libs always expect someone else to do their homework
for them.
No, no, Steve. You go first. Does lack of government funding cost jobs,
or is government incapable of job creation?
You made your claim, back it up. I won't do your homework for you
lib.
3184 Dead
2012-09-21 14:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame
Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
Just about any newspaper from the second half of 2011.
Then show me some. Libs always expect someone else to do their
homework for them.
No, no, Steve. You go first. Does lack of government funding cost jobs,
or is government incapable of job creation?
You made your claim, back it up. I won't do your homework for you lib.
I didn't make a claim, you dumb asshole; I asked you a question.

You've been dancing frantically ever since.
NoBody
2012-09-23 16:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame
Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were in
majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED in
return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
Just about any newspaper from the second half of 2011.
Then show me some. Libs always expect someone else to do their
homework for them.
No, no, Steve. You go first. Does lack of government funding cost jobs,
or is government incapable of job creation?
You made your claim, back it up. I won't do your homework for you lib.
I didn't make a claim, you dumb asshole; I asked you a question.
You asked a swerving question to avoid your claim above (see "Just
about any newspaper from the second half of 2011"). I don't address
swerves. Can you address and support your claim or not?
Post by 3184 Dead
You've been dancing frantically ever since.
Seriously? This from the guy who claimed he posted a story about the
Obama knowing about the terrorist attack ahead of time but refuses to
show where he did so? (Goes to credibility your honor...).
3184 Dead
2012-09-23 17:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:30:02 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame
Republicans...
This is the deal Republicans unanimously forced on us, you
lying jackass.
Didn't actually read the post I see....
any "post" that does not correctly admit that republicans were
in majority advantage---and agreed--isn't worth reading.
Your failure to comprehend English (again) is so noted.
Not just agreed: insisted. This was what the Republicans DEMANDED
in return for an extension of unemployment payments.
Cite?
Just about any newspaper from the second half of 2011.
Then show me some. Libs always expect someone else to do their
homework for them.
No, no, Steve. You go first. Does lack of government funding cost jobs,
or is government incapable of job creation?
You made your claim, back it up. I won't do your homework for you lib.
I didn't make a claim, you dumb asshole; I asked you a question.
You asked a swerving question to avoid your claim above (see "Just about
any newspaper from the second half of 2011"). I don't address swerves.
Can you address and support your claim or not?
Steve, play your silly troll games somewhere else. I don't feel obliged
to waste time showing morons that yes, a country named India really does
exist.
Post by 3184 Dead
You've been dancing frantically ever since.
Seriously? This from the guy who claimed he posted a story about the
Obama knowing about the terrorist attack ahead of time but refuses to
show where he did so? (Goes to credibility your honor...).
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-16 21:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by wy
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
There has NEVER been a time when revenue increases were "off the
table"

IDIOT
NoBody
2012-09-17 10:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by wy
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation: Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
There has NEVER been a time when revenue increases were "off the
table"
Where did I claim this?
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IDIOT
You clearly are for entertainment purposes only.
Yak
2012-09-17 17:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they got
on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to use
it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it.  You're going to have to provide the exact
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation:  Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
Translation #2: Reid doesn't want his minions' votes to be on the
record. Reid is only interested in political cover.
3184 Dead
2012-09-17 17:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yak
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they
got on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his
inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to
use it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it.  You're going to have to provide the exact
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation:  Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
Translation #2: Reid doesn't want his minions' votes to be on the
record. Reid is only interested in political cover.
Both you dishonest assholes are trying to rewrite history.

This is the deal the GOP forced on Obama in exchange for a six-month
unemployment extension. The idea was these cuts would take place
automatically unless the supercommittee could come up with alternatives
by Thanksgiving of last year. They couldn't, and so the cuts are
automatic.

You stupid bastards always want automatic across-the-board cuts, and I've
even seen some of you try and claim it will make government more flexible
and responsive, which is the height of idiocy.

You cunts finally get your way, and what happens? You whine LOUDER!
NoBody
2012-09-18 10:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by Yak
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way.  Now you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that.  The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill.  Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they
got on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his
inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to
use it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
No luck in finding it.  You're going to have to provide the exact
"At one point in mid-2011, Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner
appeared close to a “grand bargain’' on a $4 trillion long-term
deficit reduction plan. Mr. Boehner pulled out of the talks after
conservatives rebelled at the idea of tax increases insisted on by Mr.
Obama, and the two sides settled for a two-step plan as part of the
deal that raised the federal debt ceiling.
Translation:  Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
Translation #2: Reid doesn't want his minions' votes to be on the
record. Reid is only interested in political cover.
Both you dishonest assholes are trying to rewrite history.
This is the deal the GOP forced on Obama in exchange for a six-month
unemployment extension. The idea was these cuts would take place
automatically unless the supercommittee could come up with alternatives
by Thanksgiving of last year. They couldn't, and so the cuts are
automatic.
And your cite that it was the Republicans who insisted upon the
automatic cuts or will you just you the typical lib "go look it up
yourself" dodge?
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-17 18:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yak
Translation:  Obama changed the deal and you blame Republicans...
Translation #2: Reid doesn't want his minions' votes to be on the
record. Reid is only interested in political cover.
The filibuster by republicans was done because democrats (reid)
refused to allow days of debate, amendments and "repeal obamacare"
crap.
John Doe
2012-09-15 03:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Maybe the problem this partisan blind zealot is having, trying to
find yesterday's Senate session on C-SPAN, has to do with it being
from Canada? Don't know, don't care.
Received: by 10.224.189.75 with SMTP id dd11mr3290601qab.6.1347676472974; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.152.5 with SMTP id c5mr920249yhk.10.1347676472947; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!v8no3599604qap.0!news-out.google.com!da15ni55818832qab.0!nntp.google.com!v8no3599594qap.0!postnews.google.com!r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.society.liberalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.89.243.197; posting-account=IIX2egoAAADpGWhKIZQV6MpPXFLAKFvz
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.89.243.197
References: <18d758pu8dkrqkdtbb08854igan6m3f6tn 4ax.com> <307bb7ab-c17c-456a-bbdc-d7352635a5fe y12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <o1f758p01pgme20kml93nip8bcfd88no2n 4ax.com> <dcbee02b-4611-4987-b3c3-c365b330adcf h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> <k30hai$ebm$2 dont-email.me> <384db440-244a-4049-a49b-30d33903be84 u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <k30mr1$6m9$2 dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; Edition Indonesian Local; en) Presto/2.8.131 Version/11.11,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <ea7b3be3-effc-4ace-9d8f-696e3cc52123 r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: White House Warns Congress of 'Devastating' Cuts in Report
From: wy <wy_ myself.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:34:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.politics.usa.republican:185112 alt.politics.liberalism:423558 alt.politics.democrats:391878 alt.society.liberalism:475719 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:1145119
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Personally I blame both parties for this. ÿThe Far Left
and Right won't compromise at all.
And there is a reason for that.
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year,
actually reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but
as you may recall, or should recall, at the very last
minute Boner balked and killed it when Obama pressed for
some additional tax increases on the wealthy to bring in
extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts. ÿSo
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to
make a billionaire pay a million bucks more. ÿThe blame
goes to Repugnants for wanting to get it their way without
giving up their way. ÿNow you've got these automatic budget
cuts that'll start taking place in January as a result of
that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Funny, but wrong.
Today, I was listening to senate majority leader Harry Reid
talk about Republican filibustering. And I was thinking "I
wonder if that's because Harry Reid filled the tree, preventing
amendments to the bill". And lo and behold, Harry Reid
continued with (paraphrased) "I had to fill the tree because
Republicans were going to offer bad amendments".
Matt is right, the problem is lack of compromise. And that lack
of compromise problem is a symptom of an underlying problem.
And who was offering bad amendments?
If they are bad, bring them up for a vote and let them fail.
Not as simple as that. The math in the Senate is such that even a
handful of Democrats voting against the Democrat slim majority could
result in passing a badly crafted bill. Reid calls the shots as
Senate leader of the majority and it's his responsibility to ensure
that bills are passed as such in the interest of the people, not
solely as ammunition aimed at shooting down the president.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
Yep, you got it - Repugnants. Hence, filling the tree to prevent
bad amendments from going through.
Perpetuating more of the same gridlock.
Well, somebody needs to get off their obstructive horse that they got
on from not only day 1 of Obama's presidency but his inauguration day.
Post by John Doe
Post by wy
But, of course, it would be nice to get a link to what you
"heard" for the proper context of what Reid said.
Try C-SPAN, senate session, September 14, Harry Reid. If you are
interested in avoiding spin like I am, you would listen to their
actual words. C-SPAN is a public website, even you are allowed to use
it.
I'll see if I can lock into it.
3159 Dead
2012-09-15 01:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
Read
more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-
Warns-Co...
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report
to Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the
budget in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from
defense and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes
an $11 billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.
Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job
creation at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight
percent for 43 months.
Federal Deficit
The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which
would make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up
in the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the
past four years.
At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.
Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration”
by refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the
report said.
‘Wrong Choices’
“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto
the middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that
paring the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to
national security, domestic investments and core government
functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study
released last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an
Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.
Defense Contractors
The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.
Debt Savings
Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions
will have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need
for the President to work with congressional Republicans to replace
these destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next
nine years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it
allows lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced
interest payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would
amount to $216 billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense
mandatory programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related
mandatory programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.
Read
more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-
Warns-Co...
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
*************************
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year, actually
reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as you may recall,
or should recall, at the very last minute Boner balked and killed it
when Obama pressed for some additional tax increases on the wealthy to
bring in extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to Repugnants
for wanting to get it their way without giving up their way.  Now
you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll start taking place in
January as a result of that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
MattB
2012-09-15 02:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Post by MattB
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
Read
more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-
Warns-Co...
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report
to Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the
budget in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from
defense and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes
an $11 billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.
Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job
creation at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight
percent for 43 months.
Federal Deficit
The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which
would make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up
in the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the
past four years.
At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.
Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration”
by refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the
report said.
‘Wrong Choices’
“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto
the middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that
paring the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to
national security, domestic investments and core government
functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study
released last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an
Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.
Defense Contractors
The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.
Debt Savings
Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions
will have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need
for the President to work with congressional Republicans to replace
these destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next
nine years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it
allows lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced
interest payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would
amount to $216 billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense
mandatory programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related
mandatory programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.
Read
more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-
Warns-Co...
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Post by MattB
*************************
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year, actually
reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as you may recall,
or should recall, at the very last minute Boner balked and killed it
when Obama pressed for some additional tax increases on the wealthy to
bring in extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to Repugnants
for wanting to get it their way without giving up their way.  Now
you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll start taking place in
January as a result of that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-15 04:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole

Revenue increase is MANDATORY

Then---and--NOW.
MattB
2012-09-15 05:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
I've been saying we need both for quite some time. Then again you
only hear what fits your agenda.

Poor Stalker Malum Niger Yoorghis AKA Gary Roselles
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Then---and--NOW.
3159 Dead
2012-09-15 05:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Then---and--NOW.
He's lying, you know. The Dems abandoned that as part of the agreement
that brought about the compromise, which had the so-called "super
committee" coming up with a budget by Thanksgiving of last year or the
automatic cuts the two parties agreed to would go into effect.
MattB
2012-09-15 05:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Then---and--NOW.
He's lying, you know. The Dems abandoned that as part of the agreement
that brought about the compromise, which had the so-called "super
committee" coming up with a budget by Thanksgiving of last year or the
automatic cuts the two parties agreed to would go into effect.
So you agree Both parties are to blame?
NoBody
2012-09-16 19:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
3184 Dead
2012-09-16 19:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?

Say it ain't so, bubbles!
NoBody
2012-09-17 10:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on the
bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax hikes
in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
3184 Dead
2012-09-17 14:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on
the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government cost
jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government jobs to
begin with?

I can't believe how fucking stupid you right wing mental cripples are.
NoBody
2012-09-18 10:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on
the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government cost
jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government jobs to
begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government? If the jobs are not necessary, then they should go...just
like in the real world. Of course this is just your dodge from what
we were discussing.
Post by 3184 Dead
I can't believe how fucking stupid you right wing mental cripples are.
Another loving, tolerant lib heard from...
3184 Dead
2012-09-18 15:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on
the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government cost
jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government jobs to
begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
If the jobs are not necessary, then they should go...just like in the
real world. Of course this is just your dodge from what we were
discussing.
Maybe they can get work as guards at the death camps.
Post by 3184 Dead
I can't believe how fucking stupid you right wing mental cripples are.
Another loving, tolerant lib heard from...
NoBody
2012-09-19 10:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were on
the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government cost
jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government jobs to
begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
3184 Dead
2012-09-19 14:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were
on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to find
it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Steve
2012-09-19 15:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were
on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to find
it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Porky still hasn't figures out that that's not me?
NoBody
2012-09-20 10:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were
on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to find
it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Porky still hasn't figures out that that's not me?
Look at his ideology. It's clear it's for none too bright people.
3184 Dead
2012-09-20 14:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Steve
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add
tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were
government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Porky still hasn't figures out that that's not me?
Look at his ideology. It's clear it's for none too bright people.
And while your masturbating, you forgot to tell me if the government
creates jobs or not. Can you do that for us, Steve?
NoBody
2012-09-21 10:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Steve
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add
tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were
government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Porky still hasn't figures out that that's not me?
Look at his ideology. It's clear it's for none too bright people.
And while your masturbating, you forgot to tell me if the government
creates jobs or not. Can you do that for us, Steve?
Poor Zippo has to resort to outright lying and dodging because he
can't back up his own claims.
3184 Dead
2012-09-21 15:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Steve
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add
tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they
were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Porky still hasn't figures out that that's not me?
Look at his ideology. It's clear it's for none too bright people.
And while your masturbating, you forgot to tell me if the government
creates jobs or not. Can you do that for us, Steve?
Poor Zippo has to resort to outright lying and dodging because he can't
back up his own claims.
Does the government create jobs or not?
NoBody
2012-09-20 10:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were
on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add tax
hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to find
it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your own
post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which are you?
3184 Dead
2012-09-20 14:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were
on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add
tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your own
post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
NoBody
2012-09-21 10:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes were
on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add
tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't doing
very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your own
post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
3184 Dead
2012-09-21 15:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add
tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they
were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your own
post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
NoBody
2012-09-23 16:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally add
tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they
were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem to
find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your own
post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer. In
short, I don't deal with outright liars.
3184 Dead
2012-09-23 17:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense
asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they
were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which are
you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer. In short,
I don't deal with outright liars.
Broke every mirror in your house, did you?
NoBody
2012-09-24 10:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you dense
asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they
were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which are
you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer. In short,
I don't deal with outright liars.
Broke every mirror in your house, did you?
I'll try patiently and politely asking again (but I know you'll run
again): Please provide any evidence that I am "Steve" and cite any
specific instance of a lie on my part. Failure to do so will be
considered of an admission that you have been knowlingly lying about
these claims.
3184 Dead
2012-09-24 16:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer. In short,
I don't deal with outright liars.
Broke every mirror in your house, did you?
I'll try patiently and politely asking again (but I know you'll run
again): Please provide any evidence that I am "Steve" and cite any
specific instance of a lie on my part. Failure to do so will be
considered of an admission that you have been knowlingly lying about
these claims.
You mean, ASIDE from the fact that you use his favorite meaningless
tagline and play many of the same games?

You if you aren't Steve, then you desperately need a personality implant
and to stop aping him.
NoBody
2012-09-25 09:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer. In short,
I don't deal with outright liars.
Broke every mirror in your house, did you?
I'll try patiently and politely asking again (but I know you'll run
again): Please provide any evidence that I am "Steve" and cite any
specific instance of a lie on my part. Failure to do so will be
considered of an admission that you have been knowlingly lying about
these claims.
You mean, ASIDE from the fact that you use his favorite meaningless
tagline and play many of the same games?
What "meaningless tagline" and to which games do you refer.
Post by 3184 Dead
You if you aren't Steve, then you desperately need a personality implant
and to stop aping him.
Translation: no you have no evidence of your claim but you cling to it
anyway. In short, a typical lib.
NoBody
2012-09-26 10:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer. In short,
I don't deal with outright liars.
Broke every mirror in your house, did you?
I'll try patiently and politely asking again (but I know you'll run
again): Please provide any evidence that I am "Steve" and cite any
specific instance of a lie on my part. Failure to do so will be
considered of an admission that you have been knowlingly lying about
these claims.
You mean, ASIDE from the fact that you use his favorite meaningless
tagline and play many of the same games?
What "meaningless tagline" and to which games do you refer.
Post by 3184 Dead
You if you aren't Steve, then you desperately need a personality implant
and to stop aping him.
Translation: no you have no evidence of your claim but you cling to it
anyway. In short, a typical lib.
And Zippo has fled again (just like every time he's been challenged on
the above).
Salty Stan
2012-10-12 20:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL    Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT.  Don't spend more thanyou take
in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes.  Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not?  And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my.  Reduced to hysterical lies already?  You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve!  Deflect!  Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept.  Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles.  You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted.  There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie.  You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.  In
short,
 I don't deal with outright liars.
Broke every mirror in your house, did you?
I'll try patiently and politely asking again (but I know you'll run
again):  Please provide any evidence that I am "Steve" and cite any
specific instance of a lie on my part.  Failure to do so will be
considered of an admission that you have been knowlingly lying about
these claims.
You mean, ASIDE from the fact that you use his favorite meaningless
tagline and play many of the same games?
What "meaningless tagline" and to which games do you refer.
Post by 3184 Dead
You if you aren't Steve, then you desperately need a personality implant
and to stop aping him.
Translation: no you have no evidence of your claim but you cling to it
anyway.  In short, a typical lib.
And Zippo has fled again (just like every time he's been challenged on
the above).
Why do you waste your time on him?

Mitchell Holman
2012-09-23 18:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?

Isn't that your burden?
3184 Dead
2012-09-23 19:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they
were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?
Isn't that your burden?
Stevie loves to demand others account for themselves while hiding as much
as he can (with good reason) about himself.
Steve
2012-09-23 19:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate votes
were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they
were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?
Isn't that your burden?
Stevie loves to demand others account for themselves while hiding as much
as he can (with good reason) about himself.
That's from David (Zepp) Jamieson who apparently refused to
allow the woman he claims to still be married to use of his
Internet account, and then when she got fined for broken tail
lights and failure to licence the family pets, he refused to
help her pay the fines and then after a decade, she was forced
to do community service.

The truth may be that Zepp has been lying about still being
married to her and instead, she left him for reasons Zepp doesn't
want to admit.

What's porky hiding here?
Man of Mind
2012-09-23 19:54:21 UTC
Permalink
.......
Post by Steve
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?
Isn't that your burden?
Stevie loves to demand others account for themselves while hiding as much
as he can (with good reason) about himself.
That's from
Got any "magnetic capacitors' yet sparky?

--woof!..
NoBody
2012-09-24 10:07:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:05:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?
As it was Zippo who made the claim that I am Steve, it is his burden
to prove so. Of course, it is clear the Zippo doesn't really believe
this and only uses it to dodge virtually anything he gets caught in.
3184 Dead
2012-09-24 16:35:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:05:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?
As it was Zippo who made the claim that I am Steve, it is his burden to
prove so. Of course, it is clear the Zippo doesn't really believe this
and only uses it to dodge virtually anything he gets caught in.
Let's see if I have this right: an anoymous character called nobody likes
to sound like an other anonymous character named after a defunct cold-war
comic strip character.

It reminds me of the old tale about the academic who spent his career
trying to prove that the Iliad wasn't written by Homer, but by another
Greek of the same name.
NoBody
2012-09-25 09:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:05:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?
As it was Zippo who made the claim that I am Steve, it is his burden to
prove so. Of course, it is clear the Zippo doesn't really believe this
and only uses it to dodge virtually anything he gets caught in.
Let's see if I have this right: an anoymous character called nobody likes
to sound like an other anonymous character named after a defunct cold-war
comic strip character.
Let's see if I have this right: an "anoymous" character who changes
his name almost daily makes claims with no basis in fact and demands
everyone else prove him wrong. In short, a typical lib. Steve and I
have writing styles that are in no way related. Even a lib could tell
the difference. So we're still waiting for your proof other than your
flapping gums.
Post by 3184 Dead
It reminds me of the old tale about the academic who spent his career
trying to prove that the Iliad wasn't written by Homer, but by another
Greek of the same name.
And the Zippo-dodging continues.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-25 14:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Let's see if I have this right: an anoymous character called nobody likes
to sound like an other anonymous character named after a defunct cold-war
comic strip character.
Let's see if I have this right: an "anoymous" character who changes
his name almost daily makes claims with no basis in fact and demands
everyone else prove him wrong. In short, a typical lib. Steve and I
have writing styles that are in no way related. Even a lib could tell
the difference. So we're still waiting for your proof other than your
flapping gums.
Well---based on the smell, NoWussy, they are identical

How do you account for that?
NoBody
2012-09-26 10:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:05:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:09:27 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:24:20 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:23:53 +0000 (UTC), 3184 Dead
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:28:36 -0700, MattB
Post by MattB
Post by 3159 Dead
Post by wy
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that
right.
Maybe MattB could tell us what the House and Senate
votes were on the bill that led to those spending cuts.
LOL Why don't you prove the Dems didn't intentionally
add tax hikes in the 11th hour just to scuttle the
original?
You cannot pay down debt and deficit by cuts alone you
dense asshole
Of course you can IDIOT. Don't spend more thanyou take in.
Revenue increase is MANDATORY
Which in turn removes money from the economy making things
worse...
You mean GOVERNMENT CREATES JOBS?
You *do* have reading comprehension problems don't you?
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to
government cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean
they were government jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
Oh, my. Reduced to hysterical lies already? You really aren't
doing very well.
This from the guy who claimed he posted something but can't seem
to find it...the irony.
Wave your arms, Steve! Deflect! Deflect!
Not Steve (but you know that liar) and your inability to find your
own post makes you either a confirmed liar or just inept. Which
are you?
I'm stil waiting for your response about government job creation,
bubbles. You can play your silly stalker games later.
Your inability to produce your own "post" is so noted. There are no
honest libs around here.
Government and job creation, Stevie. You were real big on that for
years, now suddenly you can't talk about it?
When you can prove that I am who you claim I am, I'll answer.
Why can't you prove who you are?
As it was Zippo who made the claim that I am Steve, it is his burden to
prove so. Of course, it is clear the Zippo doesn't really believe this
and only uses it to dodge virtually anything he gets caught in.
Let's see if I have this right: an anoymous character called nobody likes
to sound like an other anonymous character named after a defunct cold-war
comic strip character.
Let's see if I have this right: an "anoymous" character who changes
his name almost daily makes claims with no basis in fact and demands
everyone else prove him wrong. In short, a typical lib. Steve and I
have writing styles that are in no way related. Even a lib could tell
the difference. So we're still waiting for your proof other than your
flapping gums.
Post by 3184 Dead
It reminds me of the old tale about the academic who spent his career
trying to prove that the Iliad wasn't written by Homer, but by another
Greek of the same name.
And the Zippo-dodging continues.
And Zippo has fled yet again.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-18 15:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government cost
jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government jobs to
begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
No such claim was made

You're using almost grade-school fallacy to set up "argument"

Tho---that's not surprising from a Knickkkers-like moron.
NoBody
2012-09-19 10:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government cost
jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government jobs to
begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
No such claim was made
It was a logical extension of the "logic" exhibited. Engage your
brain before responding please.
3184 Dead
2012-09-19 14:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
No such claim was made
It was a logical extension of the "logic" exhibited. Engage your brain
before responding please.
It's called the "reducio ad absurdum" fallacy.

It's the sign of a weak debater who brings no ammunition to the argument.
NoBody
2012-09-20 10:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
No such claim was made
It was a logical extension of the "logic" exhibited. Engage your brain
before responding please.
It's called the "reducio ad absurdum" fallacy.
It's the sign of a weak debater who brings no ammunition to the argument.
This from the guy who refuses to back up what he says and says "go
find it yourself"....
3184 Dead
2012-09-20 14:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3184 Dead
Post by NoBody
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by NoBody
Post by 3184 Dead
You can't have it both ways, cupcakes. Will the cuts to government
cost jobs or not? And if so, doesn't that mean they were government
jobs to begin with?
Are you seriously advocated that everyone be employed by the
government?
No such claim was made
It was a logical extension of the "logic" exhibited. Engage your
brain before responding please.
It's called the "reducio ad absurdum" fallacy.
It's the sign of a weak debater who brings no ammunition to the argument.
This from the guy who refuses to back up what he says and says "go find
it yourself"....
You still haven't said if government creates jobs or not.

Can you manage that for us, Stevie?
MattB
2012-09-15 02:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by MattB
Post by wy
Post by MattB
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report to
Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the budget
in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from defense
and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes an $11
billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.
Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job creation
at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight percent for
43 months.
Federal Deficit
The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which would
make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up in
the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the past
four years.
At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.
Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration” by
refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the report
said.
‘Wrong Choices’
“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto the
middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that paring
the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to national
security, domestic investments and core government functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study released
last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.
Defense Contractors
The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.
Debt Savings
Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions will
have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need for the
President to work with congressional Republicans to replace these
destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next nine
years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it allows
lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced interest
payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would amount to $216
billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense mandatory
programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related mandatory
programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
*************************
Personally I blame both parties for this.  The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year, actually
reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as you may recall,
or should recall, at the very last minute Boner balked and killed it
when Obama pressed for some additional tax increases on the wealthy to
bring in extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts.  So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more.  The blame goes to Repugnants
for wanting to get it their way without giving up their way.  Now
you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll start taking place in
January as a result of that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Yes both are to blame.
Boner and gang, yes, both are to blame, you got that right.
LOL

You want to know about gang thugs.

Two Dead, 10 Wounded In Weekend Gang Violence

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/10/two-dead-10-wounded-in-weekend-gun-violence/

Gang members are total trash.
Vandar
2012-09-14 23:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
White House Warns Congress of ‘Devastating’ Cuts in Report
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said in the report to
Congress today that it would have to chop $109 billion from the budget
in fiscal 2013, split evenly with $54.7 billion coming from defense
and $54.7 billion from programs outside defense. It includes an $11
billion cut, or 2 percent, from Medicare, that would fall on
providers.
Spending cuts would undermine economic investment, and “cause severe
harm” by reducing food-safety inspections, air traffic controllers,
medical research and support for schools, the report said. It also
would force the Pentagon to juggle accounts to maintain current
war-fighting capabilities and delay repairing or buying new equipment.
Taxes, spending and the federal budget deficit are among the central
issues in the election contest between President Barack Obama and
Republican Mitt Romney. Obama is pressing to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Americans to help pay for government programs. Romney
argues that doing so would hit small businesses and hurt job creation
at a time when the unemployment rate has been above eight percent for
43 months.
Federal Deficit
The deficit this year is projected to reach $1.1 trillion, which would
make it the fourth consecutive year the government has run
trillion-dollar shortfalls. That has contributed to a recent run-up in
the federal debt, which has climbed more than 75 percent in the past
four years.
At $11.3 trillion, or 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic
product, the publicly held debt this year is projected to reach the
highest level since shortly after World War II. Moody’s Investors
Service warned earlier this week it may join Standard & Poor’s in
downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating if lawmakers don’t agree next
year on a deficit-reduction plan.
Obama’s budget advisers, in the almost 400-page report, said the
reductions would affect more than 1,200 budget accounts and blamed
Republicans in Congress for focusing strictly on spending cuts.
The budget resolutions put forward by House Republicans “represent
particularly irresponsible approaches to addressing sequestration” by
refusing to raise taxes for the top 2 percent of earners, the report
said.
‘Wrong Choices’
“These proposals would shift the burden of deficit reduction onto the
middle-class and vulnerable populations and represent the wrong
choices for the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity,” it said.
House Republicans endorsed a plan in May that would replace much of
next year’s cuts with savings carved out of food stamps, Medicaid,
federal workers’ benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and other spending programs. They would allow some of the scheduled
cuts to take effect, such as the 2 percent reduction in Medicare.
The budget office said the calculations were preliminary and subject
to change. Even so, the report said there’s “no question” that paring
the budget to this degree “would be deeply destructive to national
security, domestic investments and core government functions.”
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2013 budget would
be cut by $1 billion, according to the report. That would force the
agency to reduce service at some airports and may cause a drop in
airline travel of as much as 10 percent, according to a study released
last month by the Aerospace Industries Association, an Arlington,
Virginia-based trade group.
Defense Contractors
The $21.3 billion aircraft procurement request from the Air Force
would be cut $2 billion, hitting top aircraft and electronics makers
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon
Co. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.
Similarly, the Navy’s $22.7 billion Shipbuilding and Conversion
account would be cut by $2.1 billion, trims that would affect top
builders Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.
The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration would
begin on Jan. 2 unless Congress adopts an alternative and would come
each year through 2021. The sequestration is intended as a punitive
step lawmakers imposed upon themselves for failing in 2011 to
negotiate a deal to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over a
decade.
Debt Savings
Today’s report, “highlights the crippling effect these reductions will
have on our nation’s security and underscores the urgent need for the
President to work with congressional Republicans to replace these
destructive cuts,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican.
While the law calls for $1.2 trillion in reductions over the next nine
years, the real cuts amount to $984 billion. That’s because it allows
lawmakers to chalk up 18 percent of those savings to reduced interest
payments on the debt, which today’s report shows would amount to $216
billion.
The sequestration would impose a 9.4 percent cut in defense
discretionary spending, and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense
discretionary accounts, according to the report. Nondefense mandatory
programs would take a 7.6 percent hit and defense-related mandatory
programs would be slashed by 10 percent.
The administration, which is charged with implementing the so-called
sequester, emphasized the law gives it little discretion in
apportioning the cuts.
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/White-House-Warns-Co...
*************************
Personally I blame both parties for this. The Far Left and Right
won't compromise at all.
They did compromise after the credit downgrade last year, actually
reaching a deal to avert this very situation, but as you may recall,
or should recall, at the very last minute Boner balked and killed it
when Obama pressed for some additional tax increases on the wealthy to
bring in extra revenue while making the deep but measured cuts. So
the cuts were made, but Repugnants were too chicken-shit to make a
billionaire pay a million bucks more. The blame goes to Repugnants
for wanting to get it their way without giving up their way. Now
you've got these automatic budget cuts that'll start taking place in
January as a result of that impasse created by Boner and gang.
Meanwhile, another rating agency just downgraded the US credit rating.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-09-15 04:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
That was voted in by Ryan, stupid.

What's yer problem?
MattB
2012-09-15 05:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration, in a politically
charged report released less than two months before the election,
catalogued $1.2 trillion in looming spending cuts that it said would
be “devastating” to federal programs.
That was voted in by Ryan, stupid.
What's yer problem?
Hate to tell you this but took all congress to pass it.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...