You have no knowledge what you talking about.
Clearly, if they had you would make some sense once in a while
And Conservative sputtering and drivel still easily rebuts your empty rhetoric.
LOL both sides hated it. The idea was to have something so bad both sides would reach an agreement to get around it. Your sense of denial is unbelievably strong.
:lamo of course they did. Just the kind of comment I'd expect from a conservative. Pithy but with a dash of insult. :applaud.
Adagio, President Obama said he would veto any bill that would repeal the sequestration.
The sequestration idea came from the Obama White House.
Obama signed it in to law.
Personally I think it's close to treason using our national defense as a pawn. If the Defense budget is only 20 % of the federal budget, why should the military take 50 % of the cuts if sequestration happens ?
During Obama's first term he had already initiated $500 Billion dollars in defense cuts and he wants more !
As you have pointed out before, G.W. Bush kept the funding to fight a war against terrorist and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan separate from the normal defense budget.
When Obama became POTUS he combined the cost of fighting the wars in to the defense budget. This should have been done day one on 9-12-01.
That's why when you look at defense spending today it seems on paper that defense spending has increased under Obama but you don't see the huge defense cuts Obama has already made.
I'm one of those conservatives who believed that there should have been a war tax that every American paid and that means every American including the 48 % who pay no individual income taxes at all.
Adagio, President Obama said he would veto any bill that would repeal the sequestration.
Why not call his bluff? It would get the GOP off the hook and put it on him. They'll take the fall for this if it isn't prevented.
The sequestration idea came from the Obama White House. Obama signed it in to law.
The idea came from there that's true. But it is by design, meant to impose something that would be totally rejected by both parties, in order to get them to agree on something. Boehner spelled it out and pushed it through the House. He voted for it. So did the Republicans. He got 98% of what he wanted. And now he says it's a threat to National Security?? A job killer? Adds to unemployment?? Well no ****! But that begs the question....why did you vote for something that was a threat to national security, would kill jobs and add to unemployment??? You knew that's what it was when you voted for it. Even Obama thought you couldn't possibly be so stupid, uncooperative, and irresponsible to not do something to avoid this.
Personally I think it's close to treason using our national defense as a pawn.
There are people willing to allow this to impact the entire country, because they are committed to an ideology of non-compromise. That's not a governing style that works for a democracy.
During Obama's first term he had already initiated $500 Billion dollars in defense cuts and he wants more !
No. But 1.2 Trillion is being cut and Defense is getting hit, and Boehner and the Republicans agreed to this and thought it was a good idea. :shock: I don't know about you, but I remember hearing about this on the night they did it. A committee of 6 Pubs, and 6 Dems were going to come to agreement on something to avoid this thing. I thought it was insane when I heard it. Did you actually think that there would ever be an agreement with Obama on anything? You know...you can come up with an idea...a really crazy idea, that you'd expect rational and sane people to grasp as seriously damaging, and that they'd know the consequences of their inaction would effect everybody. You might even expect them to reject the idea as too crazy. And this idea came about as a way to get Republicans to agree to not default on the debt ceiling. So they would let the country default on it's credit, and damage its rating in the process. Why should we think that you could get an even number of congressmen from both parties to agree to keep the country from falling back into recession. The President won the election. The people overwhelmingly approve of a balanced approach to deficit reduction. You have $2 in revenue for every $3 in spending. It's not going to come in all spending cuts. That's not going to happen. If the Repubs had won the election they might have gotten that. But they didn't. So my advice is to get it done with. And do it now.
When Obama became POTUS he combined the cost of fighting the wars in to the defense budget. This should have been done day one on 9-12-01.
Why?
That's why when you look at defense spending today it seems on paper that defense spending has increased under Obama but you don't see the huge defense cuts Obama has already made.
That makes no sense to me Patch. But whatever...get ready for some REAL cuts. This is so stupid.
I'm one of those conservatives who believed that there should have been a war tax that every American paid and that means every American including the 48 % who pay no individual income taxes at all.
Well, of course there should be a war tax on every American. That's exactly how it should be done. We might be less quick on the trigger if we actually saw that we were paying for it. But the 48% you're talking about do pay taxes. They all pay payroll taxes, and social security taxes, and sales taxes. A lot of people that don't pay taxes don't have jobs. You can't very well pay for something with rocks. But unless you're living in the poverty level, we should all be subject to a war tax. I like it. This would pose a problem for some conservatives committed to never raise taxes, while at the same time generally supporting our miltary efforts. I suppose our war plans might be heavily debated since all of us would face a tax increase. I like that idea though.
Translation: APACHERAT is incapable of providing a rebuttal.
FYI, say that AFTER you show someone to really not understand the topic. It's not an actual rebuttal. It's suppose to be a summary after you have demonstrated your opponent's ignorance. Not your actual argument. Seriously. Learn the basics. Kthxbye.
Thats not an insult. Commenting on your sense of denial is a statement of fact.
Let me know when you are ready to try a real conversation rather than a partisan laced tirade full of proganda, blather, and idiocy. Thats an insult---about your posting habits.
The sky hit the ground about 4 years ago when your incompetent President ignored all reason and focused on passing a private sector killing health Care Law. He also passed a stimulus law that was supposed to go to "infrastructure" and create "shovel ready jobs" but instead he parsed it out to public sector unions and bankrupt green energy companies.
You folks whined about a inherited debt of 1.3 trillion but failed to note that close to 800 billion was TARP.....that Obama voted for. You pushed the narrative of "tax the rich" as a way to increase revenue knowing that it was a manufactured concept to divide the class's and get reeeaally dumb people to vote for a Democrat.
You pushed the lie that Obama after 4 years is suffering from a "Great Bush Recession " when the collapse in 2008 was caused by a Democrat mandated bubble that was caused by Clintons 1995 Executive Order that changed the way banks conformed to the CRA rules and HUD who was given regulatory power over the GSE's to force them to buy up massive amounts in junk loans on the tax payers dime and then bundle those loans with good mortgages and push them out onto investors. Some of you are so ethically and morally corrupt you blame that on the banks.
The Liberals have nothing of substance to offer when their confronted with reasoned objective data other than resort to childish antics and tactics.
You all cheered the 3.1 GDP numbers until it was pointed out to you that it was because of massive Govt spending and when the economy shrank you surpassed all expectations and blamed the lack of spending when total Fed outlays were 900 billion in the third quarter. That was an increase from the second quarter.
You guys actually argue the debt isn't a big deal and we should be spending more when you have no concept of the damage that's being done to future economies.
The absolute best after 4 years that your ideology can offer is to run the debt up to 16 trillion, encourage a Central Bank to falsely inflate the short term bond market with printed capital, increase the number of people dependent on the State, offer no net new jobs and STILL sink an economy as 50 million people are currently on food stamps, 1 in 6 in poverty and almost 9 million jobs have been deleted form the labor force.
You accuse Conservatives and the GOP of racism but ignore the disproportionate high unemployment rate for blacks.
Your States are bankrupt, your politicians are pathological and your cities are corrupted and filled with black on black violence, but for years you ignore it waiting for the 20 innocent white children to be gunned down by a lunatic to push your insipid and worthless gun control agenda.
So try to remember this when you continue to post more drivel.
People can smell a manure salesman a mile away. And no one want's any thing he's offering and at the core of every Liberal is the remnants of at least one great Compromise.
searching thread for "dodd" recovered eight entries
turns out only post 1042 addressed your assertion
YOUR post
and again, there was no cite proving those democrats were the most funded politicians of the investment industry
however, as post 1048 power rob shared with us the republicans he found to actually be the pols who most benefited from the investment industry's largess based on my experience to date, i will have to rely on rob's presentation instead of yours unless you can offer a cite showing your statement to be correct and rob's to be in error
Its what I expect from you Bubba. See what I bolded ? Where you label it as "pols who most benefitted .......... ". Go back and look at Rob's post #1048. Its not the list of pols who most benefitted, which my link actually was, it was actually a list of 3 pols whose top contributers were in Securities and Investments, but NOT that they were the top beneficiaries of such. You see, one need not look far to find many other politicians in Congress who took more money than Rob's three.
For instance, on Rob's list, Mitch McConnel took in $1.6 m over that 6 year stretch (the highest of Rob's 3), but if one looks at such as Chuck Shumer, for instance:
Charles E. Schumer: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets
Chuckie took in $2.8 M from S and I. Far more than Boehner or McConnell. The fact is that the "Securities and Investment" section of the economy is the top source of campaign funds for many pols. When they are not, "Lawyers and Law Firms" are, at least for Dems. BFD.
I'll remind myself not to bother with you again. Comprehension is not your friend ..........
and i notice there is still no cite offered to substantiate your assertion
Look two posts past. Look to #1170.
thanks for that!
so, the span includes 1995-2008
and three of those four democrats ran presidential campaigns during that span
color me surprised [/s]
dodd does not surprise me ... especially when we examine whose name is on the dodd-frank bill
but you have conflated presidential campaign contributions with those of senate races, trying to make your apple appear to be an orange ... orange ya?
The entire post is drivel. Normally I'd pull a few quotes out and respond. But
this post is crap on rye.
No doubt, but McCain ran a Presidential campaign also, and he's not on the
list. However, my main point all along was to illustrate 1) that Rob's numbers meant virtually nothing; and 2) that the Dems were up to their necks in the mess from start to finish, aka the "blame Bush" era.
They were not only up to their necks in it, they mandated its funding through the GSEs.
Andrew Cuomo used to head up HUD and in 2000 committed 2 trillion to the buying up of affordable mortgages.
So, they elected him Governor of NY
And they are already working on rebuilding the
same bubble, as well as expanding it
to other lending industries such as education.
Yep, now CRA compliance has expanded and the DOJ has claimed enforcment rights as Holder continues to do what he did under Janet Reno.
Fleece the banks
Fleece the banks?:lamo
Maybe they were trying to get some taxpayer money back from the banksters.
<So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?>
<Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.>
Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? - Bloomberg
Fleece the banks?:lamo
Maybe they were trying to get some taxpayer money back from the banksters.
<So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?>
<Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.>
Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? - Bloomberg
Know the difference between fact and opinion. It's an insult. That's a fact. The insult to conservatives and their Tea Party brothers came in the video. That's a fact. Your response to that video is a reaction that was expected. That's what it was designed to do. Your response demonstrates that it worked. Fine. That's another fact. It' not an opinion. Your posting in response to it, proves the point. It provoked the expected reaction. Saying that I'm in denial is an opinion but it comes from a defensive posture so that's expected. Accusing me of "denial" begs the question, according to who? Based on what authority? Well there is no authority so the accusation has no basis. An opinion can't be based on itself. That's circular reasoning, and you wouldn't engage in that. So the opinion is biased. You can't demonstrate the opinion as true. So it's not a fact. it's an insult. And that's a fact. The difference here is that the video was a comment on conservatism and it certainly was insulting. It was meant to be. But it wasn't personally directed at you. If you identify with it, then I can understand your feeling bruised. Your insult however, was in FACT...personal.
That boat won't float pal. Since when do the Republicans act on any idea by Obama. He proposed a drastic situation that would force both parties to resolve the issue. They both accepted that challenge. They had every opportunity to reject it, but they didn't. Boehner and the Repubs are calling something they all voted for, a danger to our National security, a job killer, and something that will plunge us back into recession. Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted from the Sequestor plan. It was by design intended for both sides to reach a compromise which the Pubs refuse to do. So now you have the problem of justifying why you voted for something that you knew was terrible and a threat to National Security? Nice work. The game is not checkers. It's Chess.
Fleece the banks?:lamo
Maybe they were trying to get some taxpayer money back from the banksters.
<So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?>
<Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.>
Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? - Bloomberg
Its telling how you guys keep condemning the banks but dont say a word about the GSEs.
Selective condemnation according to ideology is still a lie.
I don’t/haven’t condemned the banks .but I do think that when they get big enough that there called too big to fail, it’s time to chop them up into smaller morsels.eace
Your capitulation is noted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?