85suited
-
Content Count
1,686 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by 85suited
-
-
+1 only if the federal workforce actually decreases (which I doubt it will) They are just re arranging the deck chairs+1, Right?Obama seeks to merge government agencies to reduce waste. President Obama announced a new campaign on Friday to shrink the federal government, a proposal notable less for its goal — the fight against bloat has been championed by every modern-day president — than for its challenge to a hostile Congress....The White House said the consolidation would save $3 billion over 10 years and result in the elimination of 1,000 to 2,000 jobs, though he said those reductions would occur through attrition rather than layoffs.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/polit...gencies.html?hp -
If SS isnt around when It is my turn to collect in 27 years.. How well did my investment pay off?
-
+1 for governing with a brain over ideologyI had seen this, and it's this kind of thinking that makes so many people want him to run for president. This is basically what a lot of people in the various warming threads on here are saying: let's not pay a million dollars to solve a thousand dollar problem. -
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62679739/Governo...e-Vetoes-S-2946full transcript here - he does veto the climate bill btw "another tax"
-
He also has magic underwearAnd he's a mormon?You know that mormon's teach that when he dies, he will meet Joseph Smith and if he knows the secret hand shake he will be given a new planet, 10,000 wives, and become the god of this new planet?He also believes that Joey Smith met a space alien from the planet Kolob who gave him the golden tablets that he translated into the book of mormon.He also believes that at the temple rituals he is responsible to perform ceremonies to raise his ancestors from the dead and convert them to mormonism, (that's why mormons are so into genealogy.)I mean, unless is is lying about his mormon faith, because that is the teaching of the church. And he does attend his mormon church since being the governor and ambassador to China.If Rick Perry's faith is enough reason to discount his political ideas, then I just want you to have an equal picture of Huntsman.Just curious if their personal beliefs are actually what you guys are against..or their conservatism. -
The downgrade is the TEa Parties fault - just ask axelrod & John Kerry
-
agree 100% makes too much sense for washington to do thisI have posted this all over the place, but I will try and put together what my plan would be (granted I don't know the exact numbers but I think something like the following would work.)1.) All Government programs/entities/budgets should be audited annually by at least 2 3rd party firms as a best effort to minimize waste. (i.e. Deloitte/KPMG) - based on a few things I have read, I think this could immediately cut 100 Billion out of the budget, and over time possibly double that.2.) Extend SS slowly to 72, create a means test for those who have income of over $XXX,XXX (maybe 250K, not sure), allow for investments other than treasuries so the fund can operate like a real pension.3.) Slowly extend Medicare to 72, in the mean time, put a slight larger burden on the retiree with a larger supplmental insurance cost to cover that 7 year gap.4.) Cut welfare dramatically and completely overhaul them5.) reduce unemployment benefits back to what they used to be6.) Move military out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop using our dollars to rebuild these countries. We need to use their money, and if it means taking control of oil to do so, then that's what we do.7.) Reduce the Federal Reserves role in our economy. They are supposed to be a private bank.8.) Abolish FNM and FRMC9.) Add a tax bracket for income above 500K or 1MM at 39.6%, probably get rid of the 10% tax bracket.10.) Lower corporate tax rates, and give tax breaks to companies who bring jobs back to the US11.) Greatly restrict Lobbyist activities in Washington12.) Repeal the health care bill and open up intrastate plans, so there are not borders13.) Take a hard look at the discretionary part of the budget and cut like crazy, allow the private sector to replace areas where they can (Rand Paul does a lot of this in his plan)14.) Create a system for government employees to earn a bonus based on job performance. Raises not based on schedules, but on merit. Remove the system of not being able fire a bad employee.15.) Give bonuses to departments that come in under budget at all levels of government.That's a start -
THE GOP has asked Harry to have a vote on his bill... he is refusing. Why wont Harry bring his bill up for a vote?here is the senate floor transcript Senator Reid: (7:55 PM)Moved to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 627 (House-passed Debt Ceiling Plan) and Moved to Table the Motion.Senator McConnell: (7:56 PM)"Would the Majority Leader yield for a question?"Senator Reid: (7:56 PM)"I would be happy to yeild without losing my right to the floor."Senator McConnell: (7:56 PM)"I would ask my friend, the Majority Leader, is it his intention after we have the vote on tabling the proposal that came over from the House to file cloture on the Reid budget?"Senator Reid: (7:57 PM)"Yes."Senator McConnell: (7:57 PM)"I would say to my friend, we would be happy to have that vote tonight, and I would also mention to my friend, the House of Representatives intends to vote on the Reid Amendment tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 PM. But, in order to accommodate the schedules of senators, we would be more than happy to accommodate the Majority and have the vote on the Reid budget tonight."Senator Reid: (7:57 PM)"Mr. President, I say through the chair to my friend, the distinguished Republican Leader, let's hope they're more timely in their 1:00 vote tomorrow than they have been the last few days. I would say this very directly: we would be happy to have a vote on the Reid Amendment, a vote just like the House did today, a majority vote. We've gotten into an issue here that is untoward. Everything that moves is a supermajority. That isn't the way it should be. So we are happy to have a vote any time, but it should be a majority vote, just like the House had. The House had a majority vote today and they had an overwhelming extra vote of none. So, we'd be happy to have a simple majority vote on the Democratic proposal we're putting forward."Senator McConnell: (7:58 PM)"Is that a consent?"Senator Reid: (7:58 PM)"That's a consent. We will be happy to have a vote if it's a simple majority."Senator McConnell: (7:58 PM)"Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Let me just say, this is almost an out-of-body experience to have someone suggest that we have a 50-vote threshold on a matter of this magnitude here in the United States Senate. I'm perplexed, Mr. President, genuinely perplexed that my friend, the Majority Leader, doesn't want to vote on his proposal as soon as possible. I object."
-
Sen. Reid: 'It's Always Been The Case You Need 60 Votes'Jul 29 2011Sen. Reid Says: 'The Need To Muster 60 Votes… Is A Tool That Serves The Long-Term Interest Of The Senate And The American People And Our Country.'SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "In the Senate, it's always been the case you need 60 votes." (PBS' "Charlie Rose Show," 3/5/07)SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country. It is often said that the laws are 'the system of wise restraints that set men free.' The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as majority leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution. I say on this floor that I love so much that I believe in the Golden Rule. I am going to treat my Republican colleagues the way that I expect to be treated. There is no 'I've got you,' no get even. I am going to do everything I can to preserve the traditions and rules of this institution that I love." (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "60 votes are required for just about everything." "I have talked with Senator McConnell about this. You know, we may have to come up with a number of resolutions that require 60 votes. Because, as you know, in the Senate, a lot of times 60 votes are required for just about everything. So that's certainly one of the things we're taking into consideration." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, CQ Transcriptions, 1/30/07)The reason they are hypocrites is because they passed their token legislation with only a 50% vote threshold, and now are refusing to let the Democrats pass their bill with a 50% threshold. The reason they are lying is because they are claiming that the Democrats are filibustering to avoid passing a bill, which is not true.Reid's bill has been sitting there for a couple weeks with no action because McConnell refused to vote on it until a house bill passed. Now it is being delayed for two more days because McConnell will filibuster if the Democrats attempt to have a 50% vote. They are waiting for two days so they can avoid the threatened(and utterly pointless) Republican filibuster. Why it would matter for them to pass a bill that will need to be changed later is that if they don't, the Republican liars will once again lie and deceptively say that the house passed a bill but the senate did not. Of course they will fail to add that the house bill is meaningless and the only theoretical reason a senate bill wouldn't pass is that they did their absolute best to block it. "He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn't insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist." -
"We would be happy to have that vote tonight," Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, offered.But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.
-
How do you argue with a crazy person? Answer: you don'tThe reason they are hypocrites is because they passed their token legislation with only a 50% vote threshold, and now are refusing to let the Democrats pass their bill with a 50% threshold. The reason they are lying is because they are claiming that the Democrats are filibustering to avoid passing a bill, which is not true.Reid's bill has been sitting there for a couple weeks with no action because McConnell refused to vote on it until a house bill passed. Now it is being delayed for two more days because McConnell will filibuster if the Democrats attempt to have a 50% vote. They are waiting for two days so they can avoid the threatened(and utterly pointless) Republican filibuster. Why it would matter for them to pass a bill that will need to be changed later is that if they don't, the Republican liars will once again lie and deceptively say that the house passed a bill but the senate did not. Of course they will fail to add that the house bill is meaningless and the only theoretical reason a senate bill wouldn't pass is that they did their absolute best to block it. "He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn't insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist." -
Huh?Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats' bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise."We would be happy to have that vote tonight," Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, offered.But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.Why would you bother to post this? It just makes Republicans look like lying hypocrites, which I assume is something that you do not want. -
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside...-own-debt-bill/I trust you understand what happened and why that quote is such crap.The offer from the Republicans was to allow a vote on the Senate Bill last night but it would mean that to pass it would require 60 votes and not a simple majority. The Republicans could have easily let a vote happen that would have passed the Bill with a simple majority of 51 but they didn't do that. The Senate Filibuster rules are stupid and one of the reasons that your government is so screwed up and can't ever seem to get anything done.The reason Reid would "lose" a vote last night would have been because of the Republicans a vote last night would have required 60 votes to pass while on Sunday a simple majority of 51 will pass the Bill.Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats' bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise."We would be happy to have that vote tonight," Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, offered.But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn't insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist."There is now another filibuster. That's what this is. It's a filibuster to stop us from moving forward," he said.Mr. Reid complained that if the House had been held to the same super majority rules the Senate often operates under, Republicans' proposal never would have passed over there earlier in the day.Under the rules, to end a filibuster usually requires a vote be delayed until two days after the parliamentary motion is made. But the Senate this year has repeatedly set 60-vote thresholds and held the votes without the two-day delay.For their part, Democrats pointed to reports back in April that showed Republicans themselves were thinking about not insisting on the 60-vote threshold. Those plans were scuttled when it became clear some in the GOP wanted to scrape for every inch in the fight.In lieu of a Senate vote, House Republicans themselves will introduce and then vote to kill the Reid plan on Saturday afternoon as a way to try to force negotiations into the next phase. -
-
You know this is an accounting gimmick right? HE is cutting spending that never existedREID AMENDMENTSummary * Savings from winding down the wars* Other spending savings from the Biden Group -
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...=0#entry3444806FCP Poll Update28 votes for Silent Snow16 Votes for HB
-
Paul Ryan ripped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the fantasy savings in his budget planVideo Here - 2 Minshttp://www.mrctv.org/video/104131“We assume we’re going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we’re going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. I’ve got a better idea. Let’s pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let’s pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let’s come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let’s save $14 trillion. This stuff is fiscal fantasy. You can’t make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker.”
-
I pay enough F**king taxes already.Just based on stuff I've read from this forum or researching stuff in response to posts in here, I'm starting to think that individual income taxes should be raised, but business taxes should be lowered. -
Link for storySo, ~90K per person, right? What do YOU think their jobs are worth?in total, President Obama’s 454 employees at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will rake in $37 million. That’s up $4 million from the income of George W. Bush’s staff in 2008, back when the unemployment rate was three points lower, the federal government workforce was 12 percent smaller and the massive deficit was still measured in hundreds of billions, not trillions. One in three of Obama’s employees makes more than $100,000 a year.Of particular interest to me are the high-paid Obama aides assigned to the apparently vital task of “engagement” — that is, politicking, pandering and partisan cajoling — on the taxpayers’ dime.I found at least 17 staffers listed in the report with titles referencing the “Office of Public Engagement” (OPE) or “online engagement” (otherwise known as liberal blog hand-holding and crisis management). These “engagers” are among the top earners in the White House. Fourteen of the 17 earn $50,000 or more. Chicago crony Valerie Jarrett, the White House senior adviser who oversees OPE, receives a salary of $172,200 a year. Michael Strautmanis, deputy assistant to the president and counselor to the senior adviser for strategic engagement, earns $150,000. Nathanael Tamarin, a special assistant to the president for public engagement, makes $96,900 a year.The director of OPE, Jon Carson, pulls in $153,000 annually. Carson’s deputy, Brian Bond, boasts a $93,840 yearly salary. OPE deputy directors Greg Nelson and Anne Filipic earn $92,000. -
quote of the day from Neil Cavuto on Obama not being at the Debt Talks
Rep. James Clyburn: “We can’t have the President sitting in these meetings, three and four hours every day, when all of these other things are happening around the world. The president has much more to do with his time, and that’s why you have a Vice President.”Neil Cavuto: “You might be right Congressman, but no offense, he’s in New York, you know, fundraising tonight.” -
fine with me.Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduce a bill to end the federal ban on marijuana and instead leave it up to the states to determine the legality issues:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/m...l_n_882707.htmlCertainly this should get the support of 100% of Republicans, right? I mean, it's everything they claim to wants: states' rights, individual freedom, helping the deficit. -
Political Resume is meaningless now that the country elected the biggest lightweight ever, BHO...Your employment history is irrelevant. Hers is not. The standards are a smidge higher when you run for president. And if she couldn't finish out a term as governor bc the scrutiny was too damaging...well that will multiplied by 1000 as the president.I agree though that her pigheaded opposition to improving childhood nutritional habits is more damaging. But comparing your quitting some random job to her quitting as governor and thinking that proves something...not seeing your point. -
LA Times Won’t Release Obama-Khalidi Tape But Posts 24,000 Sarah Palin Emailshttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44101
-
click here for articlean interesting articleI agree with all of this. I'm just pointing out that nothing Obama said is new. That's been America's position as 3rd party negotiators forever (much to Israel's dismay).Yesterday, President Obama dramatically altered longstanding U.S. policy regarding Israel’s borders and her security by calling upon Israel to pull back to the “1967 borders”. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is set to meet with President Obama today, quickly rejected the President’s call, asserting that such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel’s security and wellbeing. In addition, the Prime Minister stated that he expected to hear the President reaffirm commitments made to Israel in 2004 by President George W. Bush and the Congress which made it clear that Israel would not have to withdraw to the “1967 borders.” President Bush’s commitments reaffirmed U.S. foreign policy that dates back to 1967 and President Johnson. At that time, it was widely understood that there would be no return the “1967 borders” as they were incapable of providing Israel with adequate defense.It must be pointed out that there is no such thing as “1967 borders” between the Jewish State of Israel and the Palestinian State. Firstly, there was no Palestinian State at that time. Secondly, given that there was no Palestinian State, there was no official border. There was and is the “Green Line” which runs through the West Bank. This “line” is the 1949 Armistice Line that marked where Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (1947-1949). The War of Independence was a result of Israel’s Arab neighbors attacking the newly created Jewish State in an effort to destroy her. The Armistice Line is what people refer to as the “1967 border” since it served as the unofficial border between the Jewish State and Jordan until the Six Day War in 1967.The Armistice Line, which cut Jerusalem in half and put the Western Wall under Jordanian control, was never intended to serve as an official international border. As was specified as early as the 1949 General Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel: “the line that was designated did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties, since it had been dictated by exclusively by military considerations.”During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel was attacked by Jordan and other Arab neighbors. In self-defense, Israel pushed the Jordanians out of Jerusalem and all regions that lay to the west of the bank of the Jordan River – gaining possession of the region (now referred to as the West Bank) that lies on the east side of the “Green Line”.In response to the Six Day War, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 242 which expressed concern with “the grave situation in the Middle East”. In addition, the resolution called for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The Resolution states that the U.N. must “promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement” between the involved parties. The Resolution does not call for Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank and, thus, return to the “1967 borders”. Some have tried to twist the wording of Resolution 242 by asserting that it calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forced from THE territories. But this is not the case. It has been widely documented by those involved in crafting the Resolution that the language used was intentional. There was never the expectation that Israel would return to the “1967 borders”. They were an artificial armistice line that provided no security to Israel.The idea that, through negotiations, Israel would withdraw from PARTS of the West Bank and, in turn, define her eastern border was embraced by President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. In 2005, President Bush stated that “any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the (“1967 borders”) must be mutually agreed to.”Yesterday, President Obama changed U.S. foreign policy by stating that the United States believes that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” These words legitimize an artificial line that was never intended to define a border. While the President acknowledged the need for “mutually agreed swaps” of land, his words put “the 1967 lines” at the foundation of any future discussions between Israel and Palestine. This is not what the statesmen who crafted U.N. Resolution 242 intended years ago. This is not what previous Presidents demanded of Israel. And withdrawing to the “1967 borders” is not Israel’s idea of peace and security.While on the surface President Obama’s words might seem like nothing new, they are. They give legitimacy to a border that endangers the Jewish State, cuts through the heart of Jerusalem – the capital of Israel and Judaism’s holiest city, and simply defines where a war stopped in 1949 – but never defined where the sovereign nation of Israel ended and where the sovereign nation of Palestine began. The President appears to be reinterpreting the purpose of the “1967 border”. Given that the President’s “reinterpretation” came hours before Prime Minister Netanyahu was set to arrive in the United States to meet with the President and speak before Congress, it appears that his words were meant to dictate what Israel’s borders will look like. The President’s timing suggests that he wants to undermine the Prime Minister’s vision and set preconditions for future peace talks. Israel, a friend and an ally who already has the challenge of negotiating peace with a “partner” that refuses to recognize her very right to exist and now includes Hamas, deserves to be treated better.Sadly, the President seems to be following in the footsteps of other world leaders who have attempted to rewrite or tinker with the complexities surrounding Israel and her neighbors. It is time for those of us who love Israel to reach out of our President and let him know that his words are putting Israel in danger, delaying the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution and leading us all away from a true and lasting peace.
Union Worker Protests In Wi
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted