House Dems "Nothing left to cut in budget — ‘the cupboard is bare’"

[BUnit1701]

Except for the FACT that studies have PROVEN that democrats haven't really moved further left recently and republicans have made a hard shift right. But you've proven time and again that facts are not one of your fortes.

Who said it was recent? The Dems ran hard left 100 years ago and have never let up since. The Repugs have spent most of that time slowly inching left as not to alarm their base.

 

[thraashman]

Who said it was recent? The Dems ran hard left 100 years ago and have never let up since. The Repugs have spent most of that time slowly inching left as not to alarm their base.

You apparently can't read charts. If you look you'd notice that the Democrats are closer to center than the Republicans by a good bit at current. And that the Dems have really not in their history fluctuated much further left than they are now. And the Republicans have been moving right at a fast pace. It's been since the early 90's that the Republicans were as close to center as the current Democrats.

 

[Jhhnn]

Having a filibuster proof majority is not needed unless a highly controversial and partisan agenda is being pushed down the throats of Americans.

Or modern Republicans are the minority party, the party of No!

What radical agenda do you speak of? Adoption of the Heritage Foundation's ideas about healthcare? Carrying through on the Bush Admin's much needed economic stimulus?Feeding children in the face of the worst economic catasdtrophe in 3 generations? Raising taxes on America's wealthiest to rates well below those of the Reagan era?

What, *exactly*, has been radical about Dems' agenda, anyway?

 

[irishScott]

The ROTW is fantasy land?

It might as well be as far as American politics are concerned, otherwise the ROTW would have the right to vote in American elections.

Saying "Democrats are not liberal, because the rest of the world is more liberal" is a pointless moving of semantic goal posts. It only serves to imply the idea that the rest of the world is better off than we are because they are more liberal.

You want to believe that, that's your right, but don't hide it behind semantics. Only shows insecurity in your own beliefs that you feel you have to put a semantic veneer on them.

 

[Jhhnn]

That frankly is so bizarre with the Dems. They get control of Congress in 2006, Bush works with them unless they try and impose a pullout date on Iraq or Afghanistan, which makes sense. Dems are in working with Bush, and vice versa, to run the country. Economy crashes in 2008 - it's all that evil Bush fault...but no mention of the past 2 years of control by Dems. Then in 2008, after knowing the entire time that a Dem is going to be POTUS, and thus having what is years now at that point time for planning and having ready their legislation, we get...a 90's Rep HC plan?!?! Rather than have public meetings on it (that would largely be pre-scripted because they should have already had them to craft their legislation) and then passing a US version of UHC, we get what we got. That is, nothing to really control what makes needing UHC important: costs.

It's like the Dems are so incompetent, they can only snatch failure from the jaws of victory. This is to say nothing of the crazies they have in their party - they are as crazy, if not in more important ways more so, than their Rep crazy counterparts.

HowTF does a responsible US citizen decide who to vote for???

Chuck

Oh, please. The housing bubble pooch was screwed before Dems took the majority early in 2007. The rout had already begun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble#Timeline

Prices and leverage had reached unsustainable levels early in 2006, probably earlier. It's like the Titanic- she couldn't turn in time to avoid the iceberg. Bush and Congress were just rearranging the deck chairs, oblivious to the danger.

 

[Jhhnn]

It might as well be as far as American politics are concerned, otherwise the ROTW would have the right to vote in American elections.

Saying "Democrats are not liberal, because the rest of the world is more liberal" is a pointless moving of semantic goal posts. It only serves to imply the idea that the rest of the world is better off than we are because they are more liberal.

You want to believe that, that's your right, but don't hide it behind semantics. Only shows insecurity in your own beliefs that you feel you have to put a semantic veneer on them.

In other words, it's convenient for you to define terms to suit your own agenda, so that the term "Leftist!" can be applied to people who aren't Leftists at all, certainly not in historical or international terms.

If Dems were Left, they'd have returned top tier tax rates to those of the postwar period, but they haven't.

If Dems were Left, half of Wall St would be in prison.

If Dems were Left, the fight would be over universal healthcare rather than what they adopted from Repubs.

If Dems were Left, the govt would be doing things directly, like the WPA & CCC instead of contracting it out for the financial elite to take a cut.

If Dems were Left, we'd have Capital controls & a radical rework of corporate governance.

As Repubs have charged off to the right fringe, Dems have followed at a distance since Carter, who was a big free market deregulation advocate.

 

[werepossum]

I bet all the black budget stuff that is off the books (wink wink nod nod) is never even touched by any budgetary shortfalls. The spy agencies budgets are often black budget programs, so even the GAO can't properly track the expenditures because it's deemed so secret and stuff. I bet all the spy agencies combined total budgets are rapidly approaching the military budgets if we could get a real accounting of where all the missing billions are being funneled off to.

Holy crap! I just now realized that while I was watching in case Obama began building his "civilian national security force" that's "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military”, he was actually talking about building up the one we already had.

I guess when the National Tea Commission's SWAT team comes crashing through my door looking for substandard imported tea (or Treasury's SWAT team looking for unregistered gold coins, or NSA's SWAT team looking for illegal Internet posts, etc.) it'll be my own damned fault for looking for a NEW "civilian national security force".

 

[irishScott]

In other words, it's convenient for you to define terms to suit your own agenda, so that the term "Leftist!" can be applied to people who aren't Leftists at all, certainly not in historical or international terms.

If Dems were Left, they'd have returned top tier tax rates to those of the postwar period, but they haven't.

If Dems were Left, half of Wall St would be in prison.

If Dems were Left, the fight would be over universal healthcare rather than what they adopted from Repubs.

If Dems were Left, the govt would be doing things directly, like the WPA & CCC instead of contracting it out for the financial elite to take a cut.

If Dems were Left, we'd have Capital controls & a radical rework of corporate governance.

As Repubs have charged off to the right fringe, Dems have followed at a distance since Carter, who was a big free market deregulation advocate.

Wow, way to pass the buck. I'm using commonly accepted definitions, including those used by actual American "Liberals" (who use that word to describe themselves, with pride). You're the one trying (and failing) to re-define "liberal" and "conservative" to suit your own agenda. In effect you're trying to reverse a perceived insult. You want to shove moderates and conservatives into "far-right" so you can decry them as "fringe righties" or some such thing.

And here's the pathetic bit, no matter how loudly or how long you scream it's never going to work. You might as well proclaim that the color "blue" is now pronounced "red". At the end of the day no one cares, even if that's how it's done in parts of Europe, and you're the village idiot talking about that "beautiful red sky" at noon on a sunny day.

 

[michal1980]

Except for the FACT that studies have PROVEN that democrats haven't really moved further left recently and republicans have made a hard shift right. But you've proven time and again that facts are not one of your fortes.

your right. the left has been going further left for decades. The right finally woke up and decided they weren't going to be lib's 2.0.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh, please. The housing bubble pooch was screwed before Dems took the majority early in 2007. The rout had already begun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble#Timeline

Prices and leverage had reached unsustainable levels early in 2006, probably earlier. It's like the Titanic- she couldn't turn in time to avoid the iceberg. Bush and Congress were just rearranging the deck chairs, oblivious to the danger.

Of course if you go back further you see that when Bush took office in 2001 housing prices were already at record levels.

Oh and there was that whole Internet Bubble bursting in 2000.

And yet Clinton is regarded as the President everyone should aspire too be like for the economy D:

To improve upon you Titanic analogy. Clinton lit the ship on fire and steered the ship towards the ice bergs. Then Bush and congress were too busy trying to deal with the whole fire problem to see the ice bergs coming toward them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course if you go back further you see that when Bush took office in 2001 housing prices were already at record levels.

Oh and there was that whole Internet Bubble bursting in 2000.

And yet Clinton is regarded as the President everyone should aspire too be like for the economy D:

To improve upon you Titanic analogy. Clinton lit the ship on fire and steered the ship towards the ice bergs. Then Bush and congress were too busy trying to deal with the whole fire problem to see the ice bergs coming toward them.

Dishonestly lame as usual. Here's GWB in 2002

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

Fire? What fire?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Or modern Republicans are the minority party, the party of No!

What radical agenda do you speak of? Adoption of the Heritage Foundation's ideas about healthcare? Carrying through on the Bush Admin's much needed economic stimulus?Feeding children in the face of the worst economic catasdtrophe in 3 generations? Raising taxes on America's wealthiest to rates well below those of the Reagan era?

What, *exactly*, has been radical about Dems' agenda, anyway?

Handing out money wastefuly at home with no strings attached. Forcing programs through in the middle of night.

One I can agree on is making promises knowingly that they will break as soon as seated. Open book, no lobbyist; I saw those coming miles away.

 

[drebo]

In other words, it's convenient for you to define terms to suit your own agenda, so that the term "Leftist!" can be applied to people who aren't Leftists at all, certainly not in historical or international terms.

If Dems were Left, they'd have returned top tier tax rates to those of the postwar period, but they haven't.

If Dems were Left, half of Wall St would be in prison.

If Dems were Left, the fight would be over universal healthcare rather than what they adopted from Repubs.

If Dems were Left, the govt would be doing things directly, like the WPA & CCC instead of contracting it out for the financial elite to take a cut.

If Dems were Left, we'd have Capital controls & a radical rework of corporate governance.

As Repubs have charged off to the right fringe, Dems have followed at a distance since Carter, who was a big free market deregulation advocate.

None of that has to do with left vs. right. It all has to do with scruples vs. no scruples.

 

[BoberFett]

In other words, it's convenient for you to define terms to suit your own agenda, so that the term "Leftist!" can be applied to people who aren't Leftists at all, certainly not in historical or international terms.

If Dems were Left, they'd have returned top tier tax rates to those of the postwar period, but they haven't.

If Dems were Left, half of Wall St would be in prison.

If Dems were Left, the fight would be over universal healthcare rather than what they adopted from Repubs.

If Dems were Left, the govt would be doing things directly, like the WPA & CCC instead of contracting it out for the financial elite to take a cut.

If Dems were Left, we'd have Capital controls & a radical rework of corporate governance.

As Repubs have charged off to the right fringe, Dems have followed at a distance since Carter, who was a big free market deregulation advocate.

Aren't those things what a lot of the Democrats in this forum want to see happen? And then doesn't that mean that there is in fact a left in this country? You may be powerless peons with no control over your own party, but you're there.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wow, way to pass the buck. I'm using commonly accepted definitions, including those used by actual American "Liberals" (who use that word to describe themselves, with pride). You're the one trying (and failing) to re-define "liberal" and "conservative" to suit your own agenda. In effect you're trying to reverse a perceived insult. You want to shove moderates and conservatives into "far-right" so you can decry them as "fringe righties" or some such thing.

And here's the pathetic bit, no matter how loudly or how long you scream it's never going to work. You might as well proclaim that the color "blue" is now pronounced "red". At the end of the day no one cares, even if that's how it's done in parts of Europe, and you're the village idiot talking about that "beautiful red sky" at noon on a sunny day.

Heh. What you refer to as commonly accepted definitions are those of the Teahad, the most radical development in American politics in our lifetimes.

The chart being bandied around shows Repubs to be the most radical right wing they've ever been, and you seem to think that can be nullified just by screaming "Leftists!" & dancing around the definition of terms.

Of course Dems are "Leftists!" when viewed from a perspective poisoned by willing consumption of decades of uber right emotional propaganda. So's everybody who's not you, ie, the majority of the population.

Me? I'd love it if the Teatards shut down the govt. They're holding the gun to their own heads, stupid bastids. Go ahead & shoot, biatches!

 

[monovillage]

Aren't those things what a lot of the Democrats in this forum want to see happen? And then doesn't that mean that there is in fact a left in this country? You may be powerless peons with no control over your own party, but you're there.

They'd do it if they had the power to do it, just be glad they don't

 

[Jhhnn]

None of that has to do with left vs. right. It all has to do with scruples vs. no scruples.

Oh, please. Spare us the Ayn Rand moralizations. Arguing for the Divine Right of Capital today is like arguing for the Divine Right of Royalty in 1775. Both are bullshit positions.

 

[shadow9d9]

Wow, way to pass the buck. I'm using commonly accepted definitions, including those used by actual American "Liberals" (who use that word to describe themselves, with pride). You're the one trying (and failing) to re-define "liberal" and "conservative" to suit your own agenda. In effect you're trying to reverse a perceived insult. You want to shove moderates and conservatives into "far-right" so you can decry them as "fringe righties" or some such thing.

And here's the pathetic bit, no matter how loudly or how long you scream it's never going to work. You might as well proclaim that the color "blue" is now pronounced "red". At the end of the day no one cares, even if that's how it's done in parts of Europe, and you're the village idiot talking about that "beautiful red sky" at noon on a sunny day.

You've been trained by your Republican masters to think that the other "team" has the polar opposite agenda. Joke is on you.

Lots of things are "commonly accepted." It doesn't make them true.

 

[shadow9d9]

Aren't those things what a lot of the Democrats in this forum want to see happen? And then doesn't that mean that there is in fact a left in this country? You may be powerless peons with no control over your own party, but you're there.

Perhaps you misunderstand. There is one socialist in Congress. That is what is meant by there being no 'left" in this country. Any actual liberals in this country, outside of Vermont, are not represented in government, and for all intents and purposes, therefore, does not exist.

Don't play ignorant please.

 

[shadow9d9]

That frankly is so bizarre with the Dems. They get control of Congress in 2006, Bush works with them unless they try and impose a pullout date on Iraq or Afghanistan, which makes sense. Dems are in working with Bush, and vice versa, to run the country. Economy crashes in 2008 - it's all that evil Bush fault...but no mention of the past 2 years of control by Dems. Then in 2008, after knowing the entire time that a Dem is going to be POTUS, and thus having what is years now at that point time for planning and having ready their legislation, we get...a 90's Rep HC plan?!?! Rather than have public meetings on it (that would largely be pre-scripted because they should have already had them to craft their legislation) and then passing a US version of UHC, we get what we got. That is, nothing to really control what makes needing UHC important: costs.

It's like the Dems are so incompetent, they can only snatch failure from the jaws of victory. This is to say nothing of the crazies they have in their party - they are as crazy, if not in more important ways more so, than their Rep crazy counterparts.

HowTF does a responsible US citizen decide who to vote for???

Chuck

"Control"...when there is a president of the opposite party with veto power? Umm, that isn't control unless they have 2/3 of congress, which they didn't.

 

[shadow9d9]

Don't idiot Democrats get tired of spouting this excuse?

Is that really your rebuttal? Not ACTUALLY having a fillibuster proof majority is literally the reason they could not pass what they wanted.

 

[shadow9d9]

I'll be interested to see how the Obama cheerleaders respond to this.

I've never actually seen an Obama cheerleader... are you referring to something in your head? That is not reality.

 

[shadow9d9]

Having a filibuster proof majority is not needed unless a highly controversial and partisan agenda is being pushed down the throats of Americans.

Are we playing the drinking game where we drink every time someone parrots word for WORD the republican talking points?

And yes, when fillibustering suddenly doubles all previous records and Republicans even FILLIBUSTER THEIR OWN BILL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, it absolutely does require a 60 person majority.

 

[nehalem256]

Dishonestly lame as usual. Here's GWB in 2002

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

Fire? What fire?

The fire was a little thing called the dotcom crash...

The housing bubble was the ice bergs(recall from your analogy) that Clinton set the economy hurtling toward. Due to Clinton leaving the ship on fire when he left Congress and Bush did not realize they were also heading toward the ice bergs.

 

[chucky2]

"Control"...when there is a president of the opposite party with veto power? Umm, that isn't control unless they have 2/3 of congress, which they didn't.

There is this thing called the override. Bush did not abuse his veto power. Go look at what he veto'd and why, and how many times he did it.