The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: txradioguy on December 04, 2012, 05:46:04 AM
-
UPDATE: Boehner Spokesman Kevin Smith responds- "The Steering Committee makes decisions based on a range of factors."
House Speaker John Boehner and GOP leadership have removed several conservative House members from their respective powerful committee positions, Breitbart News has learned.
Effective next Congress, leadership pulled Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert off committees from which they could exert conservative pressure on fiscal matters. Amash and Huelskamp were pulled from the Budget Committee and Schweikert from the Financial Services Committee.
Huelskamp, a freshman elected during the 2010 tea party wave, thinks the leadership move to pull him from the powerful committee is revenge for him standing up for conservatism. “It is little wonder why Congress has a 16 percent approval rating: Americans send principled representatives to change Washington and get punished in return,†Huelskamp said in a Monday night statement. “The GOP leadership might think they have silenced conservatives, but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions. This is clearly a vindictive move, and a sure sign that the GOP Establishment cannot handle disagreement."
Earlier on Monday in an interview with Breitbart News, Huelskamp again reaffirmed his support for the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) anti-tax pledge. He’s encouraging his colleagues in the House to come out publicly against potential tax increases and asking citizens across the country to help.
Huelskamp thinks his most recent challenge to his GOP colleagues – asking them to reaffirm their pledges – is hardly the only conservative thing he’s done to spark leadership retaliation. In his Monday night statement, he listed out a number of other conservative things he’s done that he thinks caused leadership to turn their fire on him.
Schweikert spokeswoman Rachel Semmel told Breitbart News that her boss also thinks Boehner's move was because he fights for fiscal conservatism.
"This morning Congressman Schweikert learned there was a price to be paid for voting based on principle," Semmel said in an email. "That price was the removal from the House Financial Services Committee. We are obviously disappointed that Leadership chose to take this course, but Rep. Schweikert remains committed to fighting for the conservative principles that brought him here."
FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe bashed the move, too, saying in a statement that “[t]his is a clear attempt on the part of Republican leadership to punish those in Washington who vote the way they promised their constituents they would – on principle – instead of mindlessly rubber-stamping trillion dollar deficits and the bankrupting of America. This is establishment thinking, circling the wagons around yes-men and punishing anyone that dares to take a stand for good public policy.â€
A spokesman for Amash didn’t immediately respond to Breitbart News’ request for comment.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/03/Boehner-GOP-leaders-purge-conservatives-from-powerful-House-committees
-
I wrote my congresscritter complaining about Whiner Boehner.
Boehner is so intent on raising taxes and fellating Barry that he's utterly abandoned any sort of pretense of fiscal conservatism.
Punish the Tea Party. Yeah, Boehner, that works well for you, I'll bet.
Asshat shitstain.
-
I'm gonna fire off an email to my congress critter too......When I calm down a little and stop typing in my best "French".
-
Boenher and Pribus and the rest of the GOP Establishment refused to give any kind of support/endorsement to Richard Mourdock...supported David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz...approved the redistricting that ensured Allen West didn't return to D.C. and did everything they could to sink Michele Bachmann.
This is the biggest bunch of anti-Conservatives running the GOP that I've ever seen.
Here's hoping J.C. Watts is serious about challenging Pribus for the GOP chair.
-
Unfortunately, my Congressman is getting replaced by Carol Che-Pelosi in January.
Idiot NH voters.
-
Unfortunately, my Congressman is getting replaced by Carol Che-Pelosi in January.
Idiot NH voters.
WTF??? Che won again?
-
WTF??? Che won again?
Yup--and Annie the Abortionist won over Bass. 2 of the 3 lost seats in Congress.
Now we've got Haggie Maggie in Concord, and the Dems control the Legislature again, and guess who they want as Speaker (again!)--Terri Norelli.
Yeah, this ain't gonna backfire on the Dems.
-
Yup--and Annie the Abortionist won over Bass. 2 of the 3 lost seats in Congress.
Now we've got Haggie Maggie in Concord, and the Dems control the Legislature again, and guess who they want as Speaker (again!)--Terri Norelli.
Yeah, this ain't gonna backfire on the Dems.
Those who don't learn from history...
-
It's not Speaker Boehner, but Spelunker Boehner. He's caving to the left.
-
It's not Speaker Boehner, but Spelunker Boehner. He's caving to the left.
that's h5 worthy. :cheersmate:
-
It's not Speaker Boehner, but Spelunker Boehner. He's caving to the left.
Boehner's cave is wide open for the Left to do some curious spelunking of their own.
-
Well, to be fair Bohner is just trying to get something done. The tea partiers he threw out are on the extreme right and want to hold the country hostage to any kind of deal that doesn't involve raising taxes on the rich. They are an extremely small minority and yet they want to hold the country hostage for their demands as opposed to the rest of country, which clearly agrees with Obamas position, even businesses. So Bohner was correct to throw them out, since this is a Democracy after all. Obama and Bohner both agree that taxes should not be raised on the middle class so Obama wants to sign a bill that at least protects the middle class from the fiscal cliff. Whats wrong with that if they both agree? Only tea parties were still saying no. Bohner is not doing his job if he doesn't accept that deal. As usual conservatives like to stone one of their own when they start thinking for themselves like when Christie congratulated Obama on his response to Sandy or when Justice Roberts actually did his job and approved the Affordable Care Act.
-
I think Boehner would be more comfortable in the pre-Gingrich GOP minority.
He certainly has no leadership abilities.
-
Well, to be fair Bohner is just trying to get something done. The tea partiers he threw out are on the extreme right and want to hold the country hostage to any kind of deal that doesn't involve raising taxes on the rich. They are an extremely small minority and yet they want to hold the country hostage for their demands as opposed to the rest of country, which clearly agrees with Obamas position, even businesses. So Bohner was correct to throw them out, since this is a Democracy after all. Obama and Bohner both agree that taxes should not be raised on the middle class so Obama wants to sign a bill that at least protects the middle class from the fiscal cliff. Whats wrong with that if they both agree? Only tea parties were still saying no. Bohner is not doing his job if he doesn't accept that deal. As usual conservatives like to stone one of their own when they start thinking for themselves like when Christie congratulated Obama on his response to Sandy or when Justice Roberts actually did his job and approved the Affordable Care Act.
Hi,
Where the heck did that come from? See the title on the top of the page "CONSERVATIVE" Cave. We don't need anymore lib lights with an R after their name; they have not, nor will they solve our country's problem. When the hell is congress on both sides of the aisle going to wake up and realize the vast majority of the working publick, who are paying the damn bills want the ridiculous government spending stopped?
The game is simple. Democrats spend like mad, then complain about the deficit and con the stupid Republicans into raising taxes. BS cut spending.
5412
-
Hi,
Where the heck did that come from? See the title on the top of the page "CONSERVATIVE" Cave. We don't need anymore lib lights with an R after their name; they have not, nor will they solve our country's problem. When the hell is congress on both sides of the aisle going to wake up and realize the vast majority of the working publick, who are paying the damn bills want the ridiculous government spending stopped?
The game is simple. Democrats spend like mad, then complain about the deficit and con the stupid Republicans into raising taxes. BS cut spending.
5412
Every so often we get these liberal trolls spewing their talking points that they get straight from PMSNBC, Daily Kos and others who get their talking points from Obama. Obama spreading it around. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-hosts-spotted-visiting-obama-white-house/)
-
It's not Speaker Boehner, but Spelunker Boehner. He's caving to the left.
:rofl: :lmao:
-
Has Michelle Bachmann weighed in on this? I heard on the radio tonight that the committee chairmen were not removed because of their conservative views or votes, but it wasn't disclosed as to why. Does anyone know why?
-
Well, to be fair Bohner is just trying to get something done. The tea partiers he threw out are on the extreme right and want to hold the country hostage to any kind of deal that doesn't involve raising taxes on the rich. They are an extremely small minority and yet they want to hold the country hostage for their demands as opposed to the rest of country, which clearly agrees with Obamas position, even businesses. So Bohner was correct to throw them out, since this is a Democracy after all. Obama and Bohner both agree that taxes should not be raised on the middle class so Obama wants to sign a bill that at least protects the middle class from the fiscal cliff. Whats wrong with that if they both agree? Only tea parties were still saying no. Bohner is not doing his job if he doesn't accept that deal. As usual conservatives like to stone one of their own when they start thinking for themselves like when Christie congratulated Obama on his response to Sandy or when Justice Roberts actually did his job and approved the Affordable Care Act.
The Tea Party is the reason republicans won in 2010.
BTW: I see you believe the obama lies. :-)
Obama said he cut 18 taxes for businesses :rotf: I own a business and none help me.
SEE: "Many are renewals of tax breaks that already existed. Others are expansions of previous breaks. And every time a measure gets renewed, the Obama administration is counting it as yet another tax cut. "
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/24/smallbusiness/obama-tax-cuts/index.html
Keep buying the lies and help flush our country down the drain.......idiot.
.
-
Well, to be fair Bohner is just trying to get something done. The tea partiers he threw out are on the extreme right and want to hold the country hostage to any kind of deal that doesn't involve raising taxes on the rich.
Wrong answer. Boehner tossed out tea party conservatives who hold the position that SPENDING is the problem -- Washington swims in money and simply can't stop spending it. Raising taxes on the rich -- OR ANYBODY -- does not fix the SPENDING problem.
You want less revenue all the way around? Raise taxes. That's Economics 101, but you libtards utterly fail to recognize established economic principles because for you, it's all about bailing out your failing cities, your failed policies, and your failed logic.
Boehner is caving to the left/Barry and he's abandoning conservative principles -- something the GOP forgets about except at election time.
They are an extremely small minority and yet they want to hold the country hostage for their demands as opposed to the rest of country, which clearly agrees with Obamas position, even businesses.
Put the crack pipe down, dude. From a popular vote perspective, less than 3 million votes separated your hero and Romney. At best, Barry garnered 50.1% of the vote vice Romney's 48%. That's not "the rest of the country agrees with Obamas" [sic] position.
So Bohner was correct to throw them out, since this is a Democracy after all.
Good God, you truly are an idiot, aren't you? This country is a representative republic, not a democracy. You might need to go back to your junior high government class and retake that one, since you clearly didn't learn anything from it. Wait a minute -- did you pass the 8th grade?
Obama and Bohner both agree that taxes should not be raised on the middle class so Obama wants to sign a bill that at least protects the middle class from the fiscal cliff.
I suggest you study up on the budget baseline issue and how Democrats (and to a limited extent Republicans) have played games with it. You just might learn something.
As usual conservatives like to stone one of their own when they start thinking for themselves like when Christie congratulated Obama on his response to Sandy or when Justice Roberts actually did his job and approved the Affordable Care Act.
And right here, with this statement, you clearly show your mindless robotic talking points regurgitation. You actually spewed that shit all over this forum.
Christie seized every opportunity to fellate Obama because Christie himself is running for reelection next year. He wanted to make sure he was seen in a tieless shirt, sleeves rolled up, as if he actually was digging out somebody's basement looking for drowned victims. It's called political presence, and make no mistake -- Christie cares far more about his image and what he manipulates the media in presenting than he does in actually helping people in the Garden State (that's New Jersey, just in case you don't know that).
Finally, Chief Justice Roberts (not "Judge," you simpleton), did not "approve" Obamacare. He simply held that the penalty that one has to pay for failure to obtain approved health insurance isn't a penalty -- it's a tax. In so doing, he avoided the entire commerce clause argument and immersed the majority opinion in the vacuous, amorphous tax argument.
Roberts was so unsure of himself that he actually partially wrote majority and dissenting opinions.
The only saving grace about Roberts' decision is that other elements of Obamacare will be back in front of SCOTUS - the HHS birth control mandate, and others. Maybe then Roberts can adopt a measure of sanity and strike down big government.
-
Eupher.....Great post.
Looks like the liberal pissant ran off with his tail between his legs.
-
Yes, many thanks to Eupher for taking the time to respond! I saw the mini-moron essay but did not have the time to dissect it illogical cliche' by illogical cliche'.
A few quick additional comments: if anyone reads my "byline" at the bottom, they will know my position on democracy. One can see fairly clearly now that as America has become less of a republic and more of a democracy it has opened a Pandora's box of unintended effects...as History has previously shown in other areas.
As long as most Americans held to conservative beliefs in the early 1900's, the expansion of the franchise did not matter much. But as unionism and class warfare grew in the later 1920's and through the 1930's, and as schools began to fail c. 40 years ago to preserve American principles and to educate children in general, we now see the long-term effects: people voting on the basis of greed and supposed "fairness" and on the basis of ignorance of simple arithmetic.
On the Supreme Court: let us hope and pray that none of the real Conservative justices die in the next 4 years!
-
Wrong answer. Boehner tossed out tea party conservatives who hold the position that SPENDING is the problem -- Washington swims in money and simply can't stop spending it. Raising taxes on the rich -- OR ANYBODY -- does not fix the SPENDING problem.
You want less revenue all the way around? Raise taxes. That's Economics 101, but you libtards utterly fail to recognize established economic principles because for you, it's all about bailing out your failing cities, your failed policies, and your failed logic.
Yea the Bush years certainly proved that to be true didn't they. Even your hero Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the rich to generate revenue as a means of cancelling spending. Its strange that raising taxes on the rich is such a non-issue to fixing the problem when you guys always jump at the opportunity to protect the rich. Especially this ridiculous notion that raising taxes 3 or 4 points on those making $250,000, and thats every dollar after that amount mind you, or more a year will cripple the economy.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204277
A study was shown demonstrating how many manufacturing jobs are constantly lost under Republican leaders and created under Democratic leaders. More jobs will generate more revenue. Even though their supposed to be killing the economy with their crazy spending.
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-austerity-doesnt-work.html
If you think austerity policies work so well, maybe Greece and Spain have had good economic policies for you.
Put the crack pipe down, dude. From a popular vote perspective, less than 3 million votes separated your hero and Romney. At best, Barry garnered 50.1% of the vote vice Romney's 48%. That's not "the rest of the country agrees with Obamas" [sic] position.
First of all, I was talking about the tea partiers, they were the ones kicked out and they are a very small minority. Second, just because a person voted republican doesn't mean they believe in every policy the party puts forth or defends. Poll after poll shows that the country believes in raising taxes on the rich. Even republicans are coming around to this idea. So, yes, the majority side with Obama on this position like I said but tea partiers don't care because they want something different.
Good God, you truly are an idiot, aren't you? This country is a representative republic, not a democracy. You might need to go back to your junior high government class and retake that one, since you clearly didn't learn anything from it. Wait a minute -- did you pass the 8th grade?
So are you telling me that a representative republic is not a form of democracy and that it is wrong to describe it as one ?
Christie seized every opportunity to fellate Obama because Christie himself is running for reelection next year. He wanted to make sure he was seen in a tieless shirt, sleeves rolled up, as if he actually was digging out somebody's basement looking for drowned victims. It's called political presence, and make no mistake -- Christie cares far more about his image and what he manipulates the media in presenting than he does in actually helping people in the Garden State (that's New Jersey, just in case you don't know that).
Finally, Chief Justice Roberts (not "Judge," you simpleton), did not "approve" Obamacare. He simply held that the penalty that one has to pay for failure to obtain approved health insurance isn't a penalty -- it's a tax. In so doing, he avoided the entire commerce clause argument and immersed the majority opinion in the vacuous, amorphous tax argument.
Roberts was so unsure of himself that he actually partially wrote majority and dissenting opinions.
Whatever you think of Christie is irrelevant. He got a backlash from Republicans the moment he thanked Obama...which is how you people always are. Most of your party is actually afraid to say one good thing about Obama around other conservatives because you're afraid of the reaction you'll get. You people are like a colony with Rush Limbaugh or Grover Norquist as your queen. You guys aren't allowed to show dissent from the colony opinion. Liberals know very well that your prime directive always been to make Obama look bad, even if that means killing the economy or lying. So if anyone says anything good of him they get stoned.
The real reason for everyone's backlash at Roberts was because he found the Affordable Care Act..., I'm sorry Obamacare, constitutional. The fact that Obama basically won that fight with the Supreme court was what ate you people alive. That was the main reason you backlashed at Justice Roberts, not the tediousness of taxes and clauses argument. Lets not play these games.
Lol...and Chief Justice Roberts is still a judge.
-
FYI:
In effect, the 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts concluded that Congress can tax you for failing to acquire insurance. Thus, the mandate as created by the ACA is constitutional.
But the Court rejected the White House’s main legal argument—that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to require people to get insurance.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/06/28/obamacare-ruling-may-be-bad-news-for-stressed-tax-code/
Politics of a disaster.
She said she was honored to meet Obama, but she is also frustrated that she has yet to receive help from either her insurance companies or the government. "The president told me I would get immediate help," she said.
"Looking back on it, it wasted a lot of people’s time," she said of the visit.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/180472521_Photo_essay__A_hug_from_Obama__but_no_other_help.html
-
Yea the Bush years certainly proved that to be true didn't they.
You've got BDS real bad. Better see a doctor about that.
Even your hero Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the rich to generate revenue as a means of cancelling spending. Its strange that raising taxes on the rich is such a non-issue to fixing the problem when you guys always jump at the opportunity to protect the rich. Especially this ridiculous notion that raising taxes 3 or 4 points on those making $250,000, and thats every dollar after that amount mind you, or more a year will cripple the economy.
I just love it when you libtards start bashing Reagan. Take a look and feast your eyes:
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i317/Eupher6/reagan.jpg)
You're still not getting it. You could confiscate 100% of millionaires' income and you'd fund the government for only 4 months, according to Paul Ryan. Let me type slowly so you can understand:
REVENUE ISN'T THE PROBLEM. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM.
It isn't that there isn't enough coming in -- there's plenty coming in, even without the infamous 47% that Romney talked about and took an enormous amount of heat over (factual statement for the most part, but politically unwise). It's simply that there's too much going out. Too much pork, too much Medicare, too much nanny state.
A study was shown demonstrating how many manufacturing jobs are constantly lost under Republican leaders and created under Democratic leaders. More jobs will generate more revenue. Even though their supposed to be killing the economy with their crazy spending.
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-austerity-doesnt-work.html
If you think austerity policies work so well, maybe Greece and Spain have had good economic policies for you.
Point #1 - you actually have the balls to quote Krugman? That's rich! :rotf: :lmao: :rotf: :lmao:
There isn't a bigger moonbat on the planet than that guy. When it comes to economics, go ahead and start your own economy on Mars. Hire Krugman to come in and be your Money Czar. And watch the shit collapse. :rotf:
Point #2 - who the hell is talking about austerity? Last I heard, we were discussing excessive spending. Since when does keeping to a legitimate budget (something your libtard heroes in the Senate haven't bothered to pass in over 3 years, btw) qualify as austere measures? Wouldn't simple common sense be a little more accurate?
First of all, I was talking about the tea partiers, they were the ones kicked out and they are a very small minority. Second, just because a person voted republican doesn't mean they believe in every policy the party puts forth or defends. Poll after poll shows that the country believes in raising taxes on the rich. Even republicans are coming around to this idea. So, yes, the majority side with Obama on this position like I said but tea partiers don't care because they want something different.
Correct on points #1 and #2. You're doing well so far. Oops, there it is! When you start babbling about "poll after poll" about "the country favors this and that" doesn't make it wise.
You make it sound as if those who are advocating simple common sense and living within your means are somehow glued to rich people's hips. Wrong answer, condor breath. When you can somehow control spending (difficult to do for you libtards) you'll have gone a long, long way in restoring fiscal credibility to this out-of-****ing-control Congress that spends money like drunken sailors. And hell, even drunken sailors are spending THEIR OWN MONEY, not somebody else's.
You are correct, however, in saying that SOME Republicans are joining your bandwagon. People like Bill Kristol and Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham. You'll note that these idiots are making the same mistake AGAIN. Trust the Dhimmirats to actually cut spending while agreeing to raising taxes on allegedly the rich only (but that says nothing about the various tax brackets/rates that will surely go up though IRS has conveniently not published that information yet), while Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown yet again.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Looks to me like Chambliss and Graham need to be checked in to a mental ward.
So are you telling me that a representative republic is not a form of democracy and that it is wrong to describe it as one ?
I'm telling you that you're making a juvenile mistake when you call the US a "democracy." It is not. Learn the difference.
Whatever you think of Christie is irrelevant. He got a backlash from Republicans the moment he thanked Obama...which is how you people always are. Most of your party is actually afraid to say one good thing about Obama around other conservatives because you're afraid of the reaction you'll get. You people are like a colony with Rush Limbaugh or Grover Norquist as your queen. You guys aren't allowed to show dissent from the colony opinion. Liberals know very well that your prime directive always been to make Obama look bad, even if that means killing the economy or lying. So if anyone says anything good of him they get stoned.
What I think of Christie is most definitely relevant -- to me. I personally don't give a rat's ass whether or not you agree with my assessment. I'm simply putting it out there.
Christie is a RINO Republican. He's governor of a largely blue state. That means a number of things. First, he's no friend of the Second Amendment. Secondly, he's another RINO who has "evolved" on his stance vis a vis abortion. How convenient.
Chris Christie is a loudmouth who, when on the podium, sounds convincingly like a badass. And there's a certain amount of chutzpah that most red-blooded Americans admire. But when Christie, huffing and puffing while tagging along beside Barry and looking concerned as only a politician should look when his job is on the line, simply looked like he was capitalizing on the moment -- as most politicians do.
Regarding Barry and his lies, I can think of absolutely NOTHING redeemable about the man. He's lied about everything imaginable and I'm simply too lazy to post them here. He's a world-class narcissist who focuses on nothing but himself. Don't believe me? On the night that that SEALs took out bin Laden, where was Barry? On the golf course, of course. I wondered if he bogeyed the 10th...
The real reason for everyone's backlash at Roberts was because he found the Affordable Care Act..., I'm sorry Obamacare, constitutional. The fact that Obama basically won that fight with the Supreme court was what ate you people alive. That was the main reason you backlashed at Justice Roberts, not the tediousness of taxes and clauses argument. Lets not play these games.
Games? **** you and your accusations. I did my homework and I've formed my opinion based on what I've read. I don't give a shit about your research or anybody else's. I form my own opinions based on what I've read and understand. When was the last time a Supreme Court justice -- any of them -- actually wrote BOTH the majority and dissenting opinions?
Did you know that Roberts actually co-wrote the first roughly two-thirds of what eventually became the dissenting opinion? And then decided to throw his lot in with the moonbats? And then co-wrote the majority opinion? AYFKM? That's the mark of a well-reasoned, thoughtful, adhere-to-the-Constitution Supreme Court Chief Justice? Evidently so, according to one account I recently read.
Explain to me how it is the government lawyers can insist that the penalty for noncompliance with Obamacare is NOT a tax, but is a lawful penalty assessed by Congress under the commerce clause, but then Roberts goes ahead and calls it a tax anyway.
I'd call that flat-out lying.
The only saving grace about Roberts and Obamacare is that he threw out the individual mandate. Jesus, at least SOMETHING went well.
Lol...and Chief Justice Roberts is still a judge.
Go ahead and call Roberts "Judge" while you're arguing in front of the Supreme Court. They MIGHT let you keep your balls. :rotf:
-
Yea the Bush years certainly proved that to be true didn't they.
You wanna compare the 8 years of President Bush to the last four years of Obama?
Ok...I'll play this game...what sector do you want to compare?
Even your hero Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the rich to generate revenue as a means of cancelling spending.
Wrong. Reagan aagreed early in his first term to a tax increase because the Dems who controlled both houses at the time said if you raise taxes (not just on the rich but everyone) for ever dollar of taxes we'll cut two dollars of spending.
Well as usual Dems lied and didn't uphold their end of the bargain.
Its strange that raising taxes on the rich is such a non-issue to fixing the problem when you guys always jump at the opportunity to protect the rich. Especially this ridiculous notion that raising taxes 3 or 4 points on those making $250,000, and thats every dollar after that amount mind you, or more a year will cripple the economy.
First off that $250K number doesn't make one rich. that's about what your average small businessman makes in a year. Or a teacher and a fireman combined. Or your average union member clerical worker at the docks in L.A. but I digress. But you idiots have stolen the language so now yo're able to set the bar where you see fit to call someone rich. By increasing taxes on that group of people...who already pay the largest percentage of taxes in the country anyway...you take away the money they'd have for investment and to create all these jobs Obama claims he wants to bring back to this country...enen though deep down he doesn't
A study was shown demonstrating how many manufacturing jobs are constantly lost under Republican leaders and created under Democratic leaders. More jobs will generate more revenue. Even though their supposed to be killing the economy with their crazy spending.
If you think austerity policies work so well, maybe Greece and Spain have had good economic policies for you.
You're using two of the most corrupt governments in the EU as your example? :rotf:
First of all, I was talking about the tea partiers, they were the ones kicked out and they are a very small minority.
Really? Then explain the 2010 mid terms. If they're so small and inconsequential why does the media obsess over them?
So are you telling me that a representative republic is not a form of democracy and that it is wrong to describe it as one ?
Yes. Any fourth grade American History student knows the difference.
Whatever you think of Christie is irrelevant. He got a backlash from Republicans the moment he thanked Obama...which is how you people always are. Most of your party is actually afraid to say one good thing about Obama around other conservatives because you're afraid of the reaction you'll get. You people are like a colony with Rush Limbaugh or Grover Norquist as your queen. You guys aren't allowed to show dissent from the colony opinion. Liberals know very well that your prime directive always been to make Obama look bad, even if that means killing the economy or lying. So if anyone says anything good of him they get stoned.
Krispy Kreme Christie is a RINO. He'd call himself a Dem if he thought it would get him elected.
Lol...and Chief Justice Roberts is still a judge.
And you're still a ****ing idiot.
-
You need hip boots to wade through "Oily-Malarkey's" B-S. :lmao:
.
-
Hi,
This thread has morphed into a textbook example of the mind numbed liberals in a political argument. They blame Reagan and Bush. Confront them with facts and soon they will call you a racist.
The facts are simple. There is over 20% unemployment despite the bullcrap from the BLS. Go to www.shadowstats.com and see what one of the top economists in the world has to say.
We had the libs screaming about a $500 billion deficit under Bush, now it is well over twice that and we can't get other countries to lend us money anymore so we have to have the fed print it up on a press. BTW, that same website will show you that inflation is well over 6%.
Seems the libs are the ones that have trouble with the inconvenient truth.
Trying to educate liberals is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. A mess and a waste of time.
Regards,
5412
-
Hi,
This thread has morphed into a textbook example of the mind numbed liberals in a political argument. They blame Reagan and Bush. Confront them with facts and soon they will call you a racist.
The facts are simple. There is over 20% unemployment despite the bullcrap from the BLS. Go to www.shadowstats.com and see what one of the top economists in the world has to say.
We had the libs screaming about a $500 billion deficit under Bush, now it is well over twice that and we can't get other countries to lend us money anymore so we have to have the fed print it up on a press. BTW, that same website will show you that inflation is well over 6%.
Seems the libs are the ones that have trouble with the inconvenient truth.
Trying to educate liberals is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. A mess and a waste of time.
Regards,
5412
There is no reasoning with them.
-
This is how it works in every state house in the country. You don't fall in line with your party's leadership for the majority of voting then you pay the price.
-
This is how it works in every state house in the country. You don't fall in line with your party's leadership for the majority of voting then you pay the price.
Anyone remember Bush I and, "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES". Well, he didn't raise taxes but the democrats promised that if he would close some loopholes and stop certain tax advantages for certain "rich" people that they could and would then balance the budget.....they lied as usual per the democrat playbook....he raised more revenue and the democrats pissed it away buying themselves votes.
-
This is how it works in every state house in the country. You don't fall in line with your party's leadership for the majority of voting then you pay the price.
Its like none of the hard line politicians seem to understand that incremental changes is the only way to get things done. The dems have nickel and dimed their way into getting what they wanted for decades and we keep trying to throw the hail mary to get everything back all at once. The epitome of our instant gratification culture. Sure the Ryan budget doesnt balance for a long time but committing to it for 2013 doesnt mean that we are stuck with it until 2040. Once we show people that spending cuts work they will be hungry for more and open to more extreme cuts.