The new party of no?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's beyond obvious what we have to get rid of, in order to cut our deficit in the future:

If you believe in the producer of the graph who is unfortunately for you is tilted far left.

How about we use the Office of Managment and Budget's 2009 graph



Ten Bi-Partisan Ideas and or Cuts
1)We need to return to is Bush's last budget of $3.1 Trillion. Current 2011 Budget $3.8 Trillion Savings $700 Billion Since Dems were so appauled at W's spending surely they can function on the same. Suffer Rating 0/10

2)Moratorium on all bailouts Savings $150 billion minimum Suffer Rating 0/10 in fact a Good Feeling Rating of 2/10 for those who paid their mortgages and didn't fudge their loan apps.

3)50% Cut in Discretionary Spending Savings $218 Billion Suffer Rating 6/10 but most everyone suffering will be a bloated Gov. worker with a fat pension. Answer Privatize everything from the TSA to the past retirement marshalls guarding Fed Court Houses. Move Gov offices to low rent areas of cities and towns. Frees up more expensive locations for private businesses and thus property and business taxes while providing action and security as a by-product of moving to the hood. Thus Good Feeling Rating of 6/10 for the non-government employee.

4)2% Cut in Mandatory Spending Savings $12 Billion Government furlough days, reduction in pensions and benefits and privatizing all menial jobs easy. Suffer Rating 2/10 for Government Workers. However a 2/10 Good Feeling Rating by Non-Government employees

5)10% Cut in Medicare/Caid Savings $68 Billion There's allegedly 10% fraud going on right now. Find it and punish those responsible. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

6)2% Cut in Social Security Savings $13 Billion Find the dead people's relatives who are collecting checks and recoup the money from them. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

7)Defense should be and is the number one focus of the Government and remains the same. Some things are priceless.

8)Deport illegal immigrants Savings $50 Billion minimum in addition to providing legal Americans jobs reducing school class size, crime and drug trafficing not to mention gangs and possible homeland security threats. Good Feeling Rating AMERICAN 9/10.

9) DNA test every baby born to affirm parents are correct as listed on a birth certificate. This will prevent any law suits and thus time and money in the future. Parents will be required to provide proof of insurance and citizenship before being admitted to a hospital. Nearby day-nurse facilities and volunteer doctors will be available for those w/o ( Being bi-partisan).

10) Re-evaluate the National Guard and Army Reserve's activities. Instead of doing things like 7 hour caravans, take for granted these mostly young soilders can stay awake and remain seated in a Humvee, and have them clear and clean Public Housing buildings, and run their caravans thru inner cities providing a more realistic environment and providing a bit of security as a side beni. (Don't know many gang bangers that would do a driveby while the Army was in the hood)

There ya go. Ten virtualy painless moves that would save $1.2 trillion a year minus some DNA tests and have the National Debt paid off in no time with plenty of benefits along the way!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I haven't refused. I answered it in my first post on this thread.

No you dole out some half baked analysis.

Do you or do you not agree that the Democratic party shifting more to the left AND becoming the new party of no with the stated goal of preventing the Democratic President from compromising on issues is a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the democratic party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

We've answered the question. I'll say it again. The GOP will not come to the center through negotiation. You seem to think a less Liberal Democratic Leader in the House would help the Democrats to negotiate with the GOP. That is a false assumption, because the GOP doesn't negotiate. They are forced (and shamed) into doing things. What the President needs to do (to help his own party) is have votes taken on issues that the majority of voting Americans disagree with the GOP on. That's the only way to get the GOP to "deal." If he does try to negotiate with the GOP, it will be him giving in to them. They will give him zip. So, this "negotiation" should only be done on issues where the Majority of American Voters are against the Democrats. This tax extention stuff is not one of those issues. He needs to make the GOP vote against extending the Middle Class tax break.

So you are of the belief that political gain trumps all?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you are of the belief that political gain trumps all?

Well, your Senior Senator from Kentucky said job 1 (for him) is to defeat Obama in 2012. So, it not like we don't know where we stand.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No you dole out some half baked analysis.

Do you or do you not agree that the Democratic party shifting more to the left AND becoming the new party of no with the stated goal of preventing the Democratic President from compromising on issues is a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the democratic party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

Where do you get this more from? Same people involved here. WTF? The premise is simply not factual.

[Riot]

If you believe in the producer of the graph who is unfortunately for you is tilted far left

You are saying the Congressional Budget Office is passing on false information? Please, do give us your figures.

How about we use the Office of Managment and Budget's 2009 graph

Why do we want to compare a deficit graph to an annual budget allocation graph? They are two different things. Apples and oranges.

[Riot]

No you dole out some half baked analysis.

My opinion is no less half baked than your own

Do you or do you not agree that the Democratic party shifting more to the left AND becoming the new party of no with the stated goal of preventing the Democratic President from compromising on issues is a good thing for that party?

I answered all that in my post. Seriously, if you can't understand any political discussion more nuanced than yes or no answers, I don't see the point of you jumping into political discussions.

But if you only do yes or no, how about this?

Do you or do you not agree that the Republican party shifting more to the right AND becoming the party of no (and they've actually done it for 2 years - simply filibustered to block even debate on issues)with the stated public goal of preventing the Democratic President from gaining re-election a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the Republican party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, your Senior Senator from Kentucky said job 1 (for him) is to defeat Obama in 2012. So, it not like we don't know where we stand.

Why is it so hard for some to ever actually answer a question directed at them? Like i said before, yes or no would suffice.

If I asked a question on another topic it would seem silly to respond like is done in these threads.

example

Me: Do you think the Yankees should give Jeter what he is asking for considering what he has meant to the team over the last decade

You: Steve Garvey should be in the hall of Fame. You know what that means don't you?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Where do you get this more from? Same people involved here. WTF? The premise is simply not factual.

Quote from the original link

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House


Anyone who believes that the President is center-right is seeing the world through very far left colored glasses. The Progressive Caucus is the far left of the party and when they are speaking for you as the minority leader, well you dont have to be a math whiz to add 2 and 2 together.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

My opinion is no less half baked than your own



I answered all that in my post. Seriously, if you can't understand any political discussion more nuanced than yes or no answers, I don't see the point of you jumping into political discussions.

But if you only do yes or no, how about this?

Do you or do you not agree that the Republican party shifting more to the right AND becoming the party of no (and they've actually done it for 2 years - simply filibustered to block even debate on issues)with the stated public goal of preventing the Democratic President from gaining re-election a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the Republican party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

No you didnt answer the question. Saying you answered the question when you clearly didnt is another form of avoiding a question.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

But if you only do yes or no, how about this?

Do you or do you not agree that the Republican party shifting more to the right AND becoming the party of no (and they've actually done it for 2 years - simply filibustered to block even debate on issues)with the stated public goal of preventing the Democratic President from gaining re-election a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the Republican party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

You cant ask a 2 part question and ask for a yes or no answer.

I dont agree that the GOP has shifted further right the last 2 years, where they are now is about where they have been.
I dont agree that the stated goal of the last 2 years of GOP political tactics were to prevent the reelection of the President.
I don't believe the GOP is becoming more attached to its radical side.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you are of the belief that political gain trumps all?

No.



However, your Senior Senator has made getting Obama beat in 2012 his main goal. So, we know his goal is to simply obstruct (again.) We have no expectation of compromise. These are ideologues that don't value compromise.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Quote from the original link

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House


Anyone who believes that the President is center-right is seeing the world through very far left colored glasses. The Progressive Caucus is the far left of the party and when they are speaking for you as the minority leader, well you dont have to be a math whiz to add 2 and 2 together.

She's talking about his position while compromising. 2 weeks ago, he was considering extending the tax break for the rich (a far Right position.). If he extends any of that tax break for them(at all,) guess what? That's Center-Right.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You cant ask a 2 part question and ask for a yes or no answer.

I dont agree that the GOP has shifted further right the last 2 years, where they are now is about where they have been.
I dont agree that the stated goal of the last 2 years of GOP political tactics were to prevent the reelection of the President.
I don't believe the GOP is becoming more attached to its radical side.

I do believe the GOP is more right than two years ago with the tea party element.

I also think the Dems are shifting more to the left.

There are very few people in the middle anymore.... they place they SHOULD be.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No you didnt answer the question. Saying you answered the question when you clearly didnt is another form of avoiding a question.

Then I can only assume you don't have the ability to read.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You cant ask a 2 part question and ask for a yes or no answer. .

It's your question

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are saying the Congressional Budget Office is passing on false information? Please, do give us your figures.

If you read the fine print your graph is based on analysis done by CBPP.org using CBO numbers. But you knew that.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

I asked my son who whas home for break from fsu what he thought of the prez..he said ' im not sure what hes doing..besides trying to get re elected' 'I was wrong in buying into hope and change. nothing gets done in big government.so why bother getting all fired up on issues that go nowhere'? 'a bigger government is not the answer'. I pointed out that on 90 perc of the issues hes lied as far as implementation of policy. troops still in war, guantanamo still open..ect..

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEfFED GOVT HAS TO BAIL OUT CALIFORNIA?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

I asked my son who whas home for break from fsu what he thought of the prez..he said ' im not sure what hes doing..besides trying to get re elected' 'I was wrong in buying into hope and change. nothing gets done in big government.so why bother getting all fired up on issues that go nowhere'? 'a bigger government is not the answer'. I pointed out that on 90 perc of the issues hes lied as far as implementation of policy. troops still in war, guantanamo still open..ect..

Your son is wise beyone his years. He nailed it. All parties, working on getting re elected or setting themselves up for a windfall in the private sector. Nothing changes except they don't even try to concel it anymore.