P
Priceless
Guest
Carry on.
Subscribed because Obama is like a teenager with one of these bad boys:
I thought Congress controlled the purse strings. Guess not.
*sigh*
It was a joke to subscribe to the thread. Easier to post than subscribe.
Must have missed the smiley face
Stupid [dxmnkd]. Be more funny.
- Homer Simpson.
Found it interesting that the God fearin', deficit reducin', rock ribbed Reagan Republican GOP House is going to pass a payroll tax cut extention WITHOUT paying for it??? Let me get this straight: they're willing to let the US default on its debt to make a point, but when it comes time to cast a tough vote against a popular measure the fold like a house of cards? Yikes. At least Obama had a plan to pay for it. With this action, what exactly is the rational for keeping the GOP in control of Congress?
I'm surprised how much mileage Obama has gotten out of this one issue. Not only does it paint the GOP as reluctant to pass any tax cut not specifically for the benefit of their wealthy campaign contributors, it now destroys their whole reason for being. I'm very curious how long The Boner survives all this.
Deficits don't matter.Can I ask a stupid question? Why didn't the Bush Tax Cuts ever have to be offset by spending reductions?
I don't get it.
Deficits don't matter.
Besides, we had 2 wars to fight!
When has anything that costs money out of the budget been matched by spending cuts? I have yet to see it on a substantive basis. But, as usual, you bang on Bush and give others the free pass.Can I ask a stupid question? Why didn't the Bush Tax Cuts ever have to be offset by spending reductions?
I don't get it.
When has anything that costs money out of the budget been matched by spending cuts? I have yet to see it on a substantive basis. But, as usual, you bang on Bush and give others the free pass.
Oh, and if Bush had proposed spending cuts, which he should have, Congress (both Reps and Dems) wouldn't have given him teh necessary support. But he still should have, as every other president for the last 30 years should have.
When has anything that costs money out of the budget been matched by spending cuts? I have yet to see it on a substantive basis. But, as usual, you bang on Bush and give others the free pass.
Oh, and if Bush had proposed spending cuts, which he should have, Congress (both Reps and Dems) wouldn't have given him teh necessary support. But he still should have, as every other president for the last 30 years should have.
There were PAYGO requirements in place from 1991-2002. Then for some reason they were not extended. Wonder why that is.
The PAYGO rules are back in place, signed into law by President Obama in 2010.
You really do live in fantasy land.There were PAYGO requirements in place from 1991-2002. Then for some reason they were not extended. Wonder why that is.
The PAYGO rules are back in place, signed into law by President Obama in 2010.
Wosh yourself. I'm just saying that the Bush tax cuts are no different than lots of other stuff the feds have done in recent decades, where they haven't cut spending to match commitments of money elsewhere. You can fixate on the Bush tax cuts of you like, but they are no different than lots of other stuff that's seen a similar lack of balance.Woooooooooooooooooooooosh.
I'm not being partisan here, Bob. I want to know why. I understand that the Republicans didn't win here. I actually agree with them to a certain extent. I don't agree with Social Security Trust Fund as a bank for funding stimulus. What I want to know is why this tax cut needs offsetting budget cuts but the Bush Tax Cuts don't. It's a simple question.
You really do live in fantasy land.