Mirage Escort
Montreal Escorts

American Politics and Government -- the never-ending struggle

Status
Not open for further replies.

Red Paul

Active Member
Jun 6, 2003
705
66
28
Visit site
Reid says Boehner just cares about being Speaker, Boehner tells Reid to fuck off. America dodges a mishap with the fiscal cliff, faces catastrophe from the debt ceiling debate. Senate Dems weigh their chances for a blitz to take out the government-crippling super-filibuster.

Meanwhile, other problems go unaddressed. The House GOP says no to aid for victims of Sandy, everyone forgets the Newtown massacre, the government crawls on without adequate revenues.

Can American government function when one party -- the Republicans -- has decided that government is the root of all evil? Any nation can fall. So can America. What has to be done to keep it stable and functioning?
 

Gentle

New Member
Dec 1, 2011
986
0
0
Montreal & Toronto
Easy ! look at how China is growing and why ! It's called leadership ! And you can only have a strong and hard one when too many people play dirty and don't give a sh!t about their own country just so they make more money than their neighbor.

This 2 sided politic system is done. It has shown it's limitation and no country will be able to compete with it's individualist society in the era of a giant like China which it's people can rise (almost) as one.

It's simple. The only specter of light down the tunnel comes from the ability to corrupt enough Chinese that they will overturn their own political system into a 'western democracy style'.

Or a major f*cking war.

Other than that, it's the slow never ending quarrels which will bring this empire (United States) down just like others went down.

This is why the rest of the world could see the symbolic election of Obama for wanting to get everyone to work together.
Didn't happened. Won't happened and unless of a bloody miracle there is no way to get out of this huge mess the Bush era left behind.

Too much debts, too many health issues, a population aging rapidly, dying of all kinds of diseases from it's own way of life, a brainwashed big part of the next generation hooked on wasting and not caring for it's futur, addicted to getting 'things', getting afraid of loosing 'them', etc.

It's the normal way down this path that all western democracies are going for, at different pace.

And of course as always (as in Quebec's and Canada's politics) I don't give a... :smile:
 

hungry101

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2007
5,857
552
113
How much pork that had nothing to do with Sandy was inserted in this bill Red Paul?
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
Can American government function when one party -- the Republicans -- has decided that government is the root of all evil? Any nation can fall. So can America. What has to be done to keep it stable and functioning?
I think you've hit the major problem on the nose, Paul. The Democrats won the popular vote for the House by over a full percentage point. Only gerrymandering saved the Republican majority.

We have probably 75 members of congress, all Republicans, who, while claiming the mantle of patriot, hate their government and believe that taxation should be eliminated. As long as these morons have John Boehner on a leash, the country is fucked.
 

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,117
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
We have probably 75 members of congress, all Republicans, who, while claiming the mantle of patriot, hate their government and believe that taxation should be eliminated. As long as these morons have John Boehner on a leash, the country is fucked.

Hello All,

You refer to the Tea Party Republicans. True. There are some very decent Republicans who would be willing to work with some Democrats, but whenever those Republicans consider cooperation they are being threatened by the immovable hardcore Tea Party members. Hence the recent humiliation of Boehner by the Tea Party, who really is part of the old core Conservatives. Sure Boehner is pretty hardcore himself. But he was reported to be willing to compromise until the TP shut down the first reported deal.

I think even some of the old staunch Conservatives are getting sick of the Tea Party. But the problem is the old core has made a devil's pact with the TP to get control of the House and now they're stuck with each other, and the rest of the country is also paying the price of the resulting intransigence. The old core really should have looked at who they were getting in bed with and what supporting them would mean. Instead they got drunk with the prospect of the Tea Party's voting power and are only recently realizing who they woke up with in the political morning. Their short-sightedness has been costly for all.

ish,

Merlot
 

Red Paul

Active Member
Jun 6, 2003
705
66
28
Visit site
How much pork that had nothing to do with Sandy was inserted in this bill Red Paul?


Hungry101 wanted to know about pork in the Sandy relief bill. I took a look at Hot Air, a leading conservative website, and found this unsurprising answer: there is no evidence of pork, but the wingnuts are pretending that there is.

The site has a few different bloggers. Let's look at what one of them, Allahpundit, had to say on Jan. 2:


Fun fact: By some estimates, roughly half of the $60 billion aid bill that passed the Senate consists of expenditures unrelated to Sandy relief, i.e. pork.


Oh my gosh! Now here's the report that his colleague, Ed Morrissey, filed two days later:


As I wrote three weeks ago, almost 25% of the $60-billion-plus package goes somewhere else than directly to the victims or the infrastructure actually damaged by the hurricane.


Well, that's only a difference of ... 100% . Makes you think Hot Air readers don't pay much attention.

And what is pork anyway? Allahpundit is quite confident that the term stands for any money going to any causes apart from a bill's headline item. He never backs that up, of course. The traditional definition is a bit more limited. Here's the Free Dictionary: "Government funds, appointments, or benefits dispensed or legislated by politicians to gain favor with their constituents." And Merriam-Webster's: "government funds, jobs, or favors distributed by politicians to gain political advantage." Even the loosey-goosey Urban Dictionary plays it straighter than Allahpundit: "Personally motivated spending of government funds by politicians."

You see the theme here? Pork is government goodies that are ladled out simply to help a given politician. No public interest involved. But what alleged items of pork are found in the Sandy bill? It turns out there aren't any that meet any of the definitions above.

Hot Air links to an AP article as providing evidence of pork. Here's Rep. Paul Ryan, quoted in the article, making the case against the bill:


[the bill is] packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C.


Now the thing is, American Samoa and Washington, D.C., do not have congressmen. They have representatives who can sit in the House and observe. The representatives don't vote, don't chair committees, don't wield any power. So if measures that help D.C. and Samoa wind up in a bill, odds are good that they got there on their own, not with help from a self-interested congressmen. Meaning, by any definition except that of a desperate right-winger, they are not pork.

You know where else some of the non-Sandy money goes? To fisheries wrecked by storms in Alaska and along the Gulf Coast:


To court votes, Democrats last week broadened some of their bill’s provisions to cover damage from Hurricane Isaac, which struck the Gulf Coast earlier this year. A provision was added to the $2.9 billion allotted to Army Corps of Engineers projects to reduce future flooding risks; the coverage area for that program will now include areas hit by Isaac in addition to Sandy. Democrats also shifted $400 million into a community development program for regions suffering disasters, beyond areas struck by Sandy.


What a terrible thing. The bill doesn't just address storm victims in the Northeast. It helps victims of storms in other parts of the country too. Pork!

And remember, this article was cited by a leading conservative blogger as the evidence for his claims about the bill. Read the AP article and you find just one spending item that looks iffy: "$58 million in subsidies for tree planting on private properties." That's out of $60.4 billion. Note that I don't say the tree-planting money is necessarily a bad idea. I don't know. But out of all the items listed, it's the only one that looks like it might be a bad idea.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
You are all out of your effing minds.

Read this article, you Obama drones:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuck...erman-brace-for-an-avalanche-of-unfunded-debt

One sentence in the article says it all:

The Federal Reserve is keeping rates historically low but here's the cost of paying interest on the debt for fiscal 2012: $359,796,008,919.49.


That's 359 Billion.

If the interest rate on US debt were to go up 1 or 2 percent, the debt service the US would increase dramatically. You have to buy a year treasury bill to get over 1 percent (7-year is 1.25). Short term treasuries are virtually 0 percent. 30 year is 3.04 percent.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield

If interest rates were to go to 5 or 6 percent, forget about it. Our dollars would be worthless. Guys like rumps would have to fill up his car with 20 dollar bills to be able to afford a single hour session with a Canadian SP.

The Democrats the ones who want the spending to continue. The Republicans want to curtail the spending.

You drones, like always, have it ass backwards. But that's not surprising. Look at who you support.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
The Republicans want to curtail the spending.
There's a word for what you spill, DD. It's called bullshit. How much of this interest is due to Bush's wars, both fought with generating one nickel of revenue to pay for them? How much of this interest is caused by Bush's tax breaks, almost all of which benefitted those least in need?

Remember, Clinton ran a balanced budget. Clinton moved toward paying off the national debt. Bush not only exploded the debt, but nearly collapsed the economy, saved only, and barely, but the Obama stimuli.

You really should climb down off of bullshit mountain and get some fresh air.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
There's a word for what you spill, DD. It's called bullshit. How much of this interest is due to Bush's wars, both fought with generating one nickel of revenue to pay for them? How much of this interest is caused by Bush's tax breaks, almost all of which benefitted those least in need?

From the mouth of the king bullshitter. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost about 1 Trillion US dollars during Bush's 2 terms.

Obama has racked up $6 Trillion in debt in just 4 years. He's on target to more than double that figure, unless the Republicans stop him.

Hey Rumps, how about saying the truth instead of your Obama drone Liberal talking points, which are the King of Bullshit.

By the way Rumps, Obama's vacation will cost more than $4 million to the US taxpayers. 4 million fucking US dollars Rumps. That's like what some of the top 0.1 percenters make. Obama is calling $250,000 RICH, and the MOFO is taking a 4 million dollar vacation of the dime of the US taxpayer. Talk about Bullshit.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
Obama has racked up $6 Trillion in debt in just 4 years.
Right, the continued costs of Bush's wars, debt service on same, the cost of Bush's tax cuts, debt service on expenditures uncovered by revenue thanks to Bush's tax cuts. And let's not forget the millions of jobs lost in the last year of Bush's term and the first year of Obama's, all thanks to Bush's Wall St collapse.

Sure would be nice if you'd get your head out of the sand sometime and face reality, rather than spout bullshit from the nutblogs.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
BTW, care to document your bullshit claim about Obama's vacation? Didn't think so.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
Right, the continued costs of Bush's wars, debt service on same, the cost of Bush's tax cuts, debt service on expenditures uncovered by revenue thanks to Bush's tax cuts. And let's not forget the millions of jobs lost in the last year of Bush's term and the first year of Obama's, all thanks to Bush's Wall St collapse.

Sure would be nice if you'd get your head out of the sand sometime and face reality, rather than spout bullshit from the nutblogs.

More BS, from the king BS'er.

Well, rumps, the truth (something rumps you never listen to) is Bush signed the bill that bailed out those companies. The $ went on Bush's watch not Obama's. 765 Billion. Obama added that figure into each of his spending for each year. The Democrat Congress never passed a budget during Obama's first 2 years. They just spent thru Bills that Obama signed. The Democrat Senate never voted on a budget during Obama's 4 years. Talk about financial accountability NOT.

If you are so pissed about the Bush tax cuts, why don't you send a check in for the money you saved with them? Huh, rumps? You can do that. There is a place on the 1040 where you can give more. Why don't you and Warren give back what you saved?

Come on rumps. Make a pledge here on merb, and send those $ in if you fill so guilty about those tax cuts and truly make that statement that Bush was wrong. Put your money where your mouth is, rumps.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
I'll be happy to...as soon as I see Mitt Romney's check.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
Say what? Romney's check?


What the hell do you mean, rumps? :noidea:

I am talking about you rumps, not Mitt Romney.

You're the one who's complaining about not paying enough taxes.

Put your money where you're mouth is rumps.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
Dozer, you can doubletalk all you want, but beyond the wars, the tax cuts, the debt service on same, here's a chart showing private sector job growth, or lack thereof, over the last five years. Note how things started improving immediately after Obama took office. Note how there's now been 34 consecutive months of job growth.

On top of all the other things Bush did to tank the economy, while at the same time enriching his buddies, there's nothing that's created as much debt as the job losses, and related expenses, brought on by the disastrous Bush presidency.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
Dozer, you can doubletalk all you want, but beyond the wars, the tax cuts, the debt service on same, here's a chart showing private sector job growth, or lack thereof, over the last five years. Note how things started improving immediately after Obama took office. Note how there's now been 34 consecutive months of job growth..

What chart? Do you see a chart in your quote? Does anyone see any charts? :noidea: The Obama Drone BS continues.

On top of all the other things Bush did to tank the economy, while at the same time enriching his buddies, there's nothing that's created as much debt as the job losses, and related expenses, brought on by the disastrous Bush presidency.

Blah, blah, blah. More BS Democrat talking points, which are baseless. What tanked the economy was Barney Frank and his boys with the anyone can own a house charade, which started in Clinton's second term. You are clueless, rumps.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

Here you go, Dozer. Maybe this'll wake you up. Direct from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to you.

www.barackobama.com????? Like you aren't going to find propaganda from the KING PROPAGANDISTS on that website????

It's a bunch of bullcrap.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/labor-force-participation.gif

In the above chart, you'll see that the labor participation rate has dropped from 66.3 percent to 64 percent under Obama in 4 years. Under Bush in 8 years, it fell a percentage point. What that means, rumps, is that there are many less people working under Obama.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/06/fact-check-have-4-5-million-new-jobs-been-created-under-obama/

And really the chart on Obama's website does not match the figures on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

June, July, August, and September 2010, the BLS has negative jobs.


YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual
2002-129-146-24-84-947-100-11-551218-163
200395-159-213-49-9025-4510919714119
200416244337249310814612216134863134
20051372401413601702433741936680334160
20062833162831811476209183157-9204171
2007236931907213975-40-18737911289
200841-84-95-208-190-198-210-274-432-489-803-661
2009-818-724-799-692-361-482-339-231-199-202-42-171
2010-40-35189239516-167-58-51-27220121120
201111022024625154849685202112157223
2012275259143688745181192132137161(P)155(P)
P : preliminary


On Obama's chart, every month is positive after March 2010. The numbers do not match.

Also, the months under 100,000 are very weak. Under 200,000 is nothing to brag about. There has been months under 100,000 as recent as April, May and June 2012. Obama's recovery has been extremely weak, rumps.

But for guys like you who drink the kool aid, morning afternoon and night, those rose color glasses really work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toronto Escorts