View Profile Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 05:57 pm
(At a) joint Senate-House Republican leadership press conference on March 8, 1962, (Senator Everitt) Dirksen said, "The favorite sum of money is $1 billion – a billion a year for a fatter federal payroll, a billion here, a billion there." (Pundits quipped "and pretty soon you're talking about real money" that got added to the line but which there is no evidence that Dirksen actually said.)

From the Dirksen files:
Quote:
"One time in the House of Representatives [a colleague] told me a story about a proposition that a teacher put to a boy. He said, ‘Johnny, a cat fell in a well 100 feet deep. Suppose that cat climbed up 1 foot and then fell back 2 feet. How long would it take the cat to get out of the well?'

"Johnny worked assiduously with his slate and slate pencil for quite a while, and then when the teacher came down and said, ‘How are you getting along?' Johnny said, ‘Teacher, if you give me another slate and a couple of slate pencils, I am pretty sure that in the next 30 minutes I can land that cat in hell.'

"If some people get any cheer out of a $328 billion debt ceiling, I do not find much to cheer about concerning it." [Congressional Record, June 16, 1965, p. 13884].


And also:
Quote:
"As I think of this bill, and the fact that the more progress we make the deeper we go into the hole, I am reminded of a group of men who were working on a street. They had dug quite a number of holes. When they got through, they failed to puddle or tamp the earth when it was returned to the hole, and they had a nice little mound, which was quite a traffic hazard.

"Not knowing what to do with it, they sat down on the curb and had a conference. After a while, one of the fellows snapped his fingers and said, ‘I have it. I know how we will get rid of that overriding earth and remove the hazard. We will just dig the hole deeper.'" [Congressional Record, June 16, 1965, p. 13884].


I wonder what Senator Dirksen would have said about a $3.4 trillion dollar budget, and more than $9 trillion in projected deficits? Probably, a trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

It is disheartening when we look at $17 billion in proposed spending reductions and declare that a 'drop in the bucket'.
0 Replies
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 06:15 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

All the conservatives know how to do is bitch, bitch, and bitch with no solutions coming from their side of the isle. Wonder of wonders that they did nothing to stop Bush and his spending - while the GOP congress approved almost everything Bush wanted - including the veto power the president didn't use to cut the budget.

Bunch of hypocrites.


Did you mention solutions? Didn't you read the conservative handbook instructing their conservative GOP candidates on healthcare reform talking points?

No. 10: Tell the voters that the Democrat plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what's better for America, you'll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your "solution" will provide is, in a word, more: "more access to more treatments and more doctors...with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interest."

The handbook, entitled "The Language of Healthcare 2009," instructs GOP conservative candidates how to master the art of Orwellian word manipulation. Thus, their solution (whatever it is--the details are unknown) will provide MORE of what America wants (goody-goody stuff!) and LESS of what America doesn't want (oogedy-boogedy stuff).

  0  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 06:24 pm
Wonder of wonders; more conservatives have lost their jobs and homes, and the conservatives want to cut them off from having universal health care and supplements to carry them over while they wait to find jobs after they've been laid off from their jobs. They think it's strictly a liberal problem and all conservatives have enough assets to carry them over until our economy picks up again. After all, this is a transfer of wealth from the workers to the non-workers.

They can't see their own hypocrisy.
  0  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 06:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

Wonder of wonders; more conservatives have lost their jobs and homes, and the conservatives want to cut them off from having universal health care and supplements to carry them over while they wait to find jobs after they've been laid off from their jobs. They think it's strictly a liberal problem and all conservatives have enough assets to carry them over until our economy picks up again. After all, this is a transfer of wealth from the workers to the non-workers.

They can't see their own hypocrisy.


All the while their de facto leader Limbaugh mocks the recession and rubs his 400 million dollar contract into the faces of the unemployed.
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 09:51 pm


Don't you worry about a thing, just sit there an eat that government
cheese, eat all you want and wash it down with government Kool-Aid.

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs012.snc1/2912_77964574775_758674775_1594156_3433336_s.jpg

Everything will be OK, you have nothing to worry about... you can relax.
View Profile McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 02:27 am

Conservatives ran the banks, major industries, and the whole economy into the ground.
Mr Obama is trying to fix it.
He deserves credit, support, and praise.
In many sensible quarters, he gets it too.
View Profile Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:07 am
Quote:
Conservatives ran the banks, major industries,


What?

How naive you must be to think only Conservative run Major Corporations.

You fucking people are living in some fantasy world. Rolling Eyes

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F03
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:41 am
Quote:
only Conservative run Major Corporations.


How can you say that only conservatives run corporations Woiyo?






(It's so easy to attack someone when you only use part of their sentences. You might want to read McTag's entire sentence Woiyo.)
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:41 am
McTag wrote:


Conservatives ran the banks, major industries, and the whole economy into the ground.


Offer up some real proof of this claim... you can't because it's BS.
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:52 am
McTag wrote:



Mr Obama is trying to fix it.
He deserves credit, support, and praise.



The jobless rate just hit 8.9 percent and PrezBO gets the much
deserved credit, support, and praise for today's high jobless rate.
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:11 am


This nations debt is so freaking high under Obama that if we were a European country, we would
not be allowed to join the European union of countries because our dept is so freaking high Shocked
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 09:54 am
Hey, waterboy, how high a debt is too high, and what is the current debt?

0 Replies
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 02:44 pm
Quote:
This nations debt is so freaking high under Obama that if we were a European country, we would
not be allowed to join the European union of countries because our dept is so freaking high


And you continue to ignore the fact that Bush and his admin are a big reason the debt is so high.
Yes, its true that under Obama it will skyrocket (if he gets everything he is asking for), but right now much of the debt belongs to the Bush admin.
You cannot blame Obama for something Bush did.
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:00 pm
I am curious how the Obama admin is going to defend this...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/07/administration-proposes-significant-cuts-benefits-slain-officers/

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is asking Congress to slash almost in half a 43-year-old Justice Department program that provides death, disability and education benefits to the families of slain police and public safety officers.

President Obama's 2010 budget reduces funding for the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program from $110 million this year to $60 million for next year's budget.

The program, which pays benefits of more than $300,000 to the survivors of a safety officer killed in the line of duty, received $118 million in 2008.


So the program that pays benefits to families of officers killed in the line of duty is having its funding cut?
That sure seems like a compassionate act, doesnt it?

Quote:
A Justice Department finance spokeswoman told FOX News that the proposed cut is a false statistic because the program requires "mandatory funding," which means the money is automatically paid to all the families of slain officers.


snip

Quote:
Any family member who is eligible for benefits under this program will receive them," she said. "If the amount of claims surpasses the amount requested, the program will be further funded."


So they are going to cut the funding, but will ask for more money if its needed.
That will increase the deficit, wont it?
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:08 pm

Obama isn't going to fund a program that might not need the funds that are going to it. But if it needs more than more will be added later.

So.. Can you tell us exactly how many safety officers will die in the 2010 budget year MM? Once we have that number from you we can judge whether the program is under funded or not.
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:13 pm
Are you saying now that before someone can criticize something then that person must be able to see into the future?

Thats just assinine, and you know it.

But, to answer your question, lets look at the numbers so far...

Quote:
Killings of police officers reached their lowest point in decades last year, but are rising so far this year.

So far this year, 45 officers have died in the line of duty, according to The Officer Down Memorial Page Web site. By the end of May 2008, 43 officers had been killed. For all of 2008, 134 officers died in the line of duty.


So, the numbers of cops dying on duty has gone UP this year, and I see no reason for that to change.
But, even 1 is too many.

Tell me, do you tthink families of cops killed on duty deserve this money?
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:27 pm
I guess Obama doesnt care about polar bears either...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30635672/

Quote:
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will retain a Bush-era rule for polar bears, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Friday, in a move that angered activists who noted the rule limits what can be done to protect the species from global warming.

The administration had faced a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, to impose limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the emissions occur thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.

"We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change," Salazar said in a statement. "However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions.


So will we see commercials and letters to the editor from the left about this, expressing the same outrage we saw when Bush and company passed this rule?

When can we expect the cries that Obama "doesnt care"?
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:28 pm

You complained that Obama wasn't compassionate because he was cutting funding.

When examined, he only cut funding based on a prediction that the deaths would go down in 2010, not 2009. If the deaths don't go down the funding will be added later.

Your criticism was meaningless based on the actual story. There is no "lack of compassion" argument to be made. You could have attacked him for a wrong prediction of deaths of safety officers but you didn't. You attacked him as if he wasn't going to give any money to the survivors which was an obvious false attack.

So, if you can predict the number of officers, then you can argue that Obama isn't compassionate. Until then, your argument is garbage because Obama isn't cutting funding for survivors.
View Profile parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:30 pm
No.. read the story MM.

Quote:
"However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions.


Do you recognize that the Bush administration had a very different approach to controlling carbon emissions than that proposed by the Obama administration?

Do you want some cheese with your whine today MM?
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:32 pm
Quote:
You attacked him as if he wasn't going to give any money to the survivors which was an obvious false attack.


I attacked the fact that he is cutting the funding, nothing more.
I didnt say, nor did I suggest, that he was going to eliminate the program.

Quote:
When examined, he only cut funding based on a prediction that the deaths would go down in 2010, not 2009. If the deaths don't go down the funding will be added later.


And where in the article was the prediction made that deaths would go down?
I saw nothing that even suggested that.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
I AM PROUD - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. able2know
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1245
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.54 seconds on 11/28/2009 at 12:04:08 Top End