Can we all say Awwww - Page 3

Ghoulish Delight · 01-02-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

...whose counting.

who's

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-02-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

who's

Dagnabit!

That'll learn me.

Tramspotter · 01-02-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Dagnabit!

That'll learn me.

I hope so mister leave chastising us gramaticaly chalenged to the pro's

Tramspotter · 01-02-2007, 01:12 PM

I am not trying to dissuade you from that position (self made box) or the series of positions and rules that you laydown for others yet can't seem to follow yourself.

However my point that you continue to sidestep by getting all bent does in a way sidestep yours so I can see why you might see it as "Dismissive."

My Position is that we are better served by a government that does little to nothing substansial, than one that overreaches and meddles and makes a mokery of oversight.

Your entire point that the government must have a concensus budget passed or it is an abject failure IMO is a big ol red herring.

Interum stop gap spending of absolutely essensal programs at current levels is automatic. And those programs that do not get funded and start screaming the loudest get emergency funding those that are unworthy yet scream bitch and mule for funding get the added benifit of public oversight.

Anyone of any Ilk should be able to at least grasp the alternate without feeling thier own position is attacked, well anyone with a point that is worth defending.

Chosing to argue that alternate is of course completely optional.

And as far as Mr Kettle is concerned I am continualy astounded by how someone with such a dismissive argumentitive style is so easily riled up when his own iron clad arguments are poo pooed in any real or precieved way.

Ghoulish Delight · 01-02-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

Your entire point that the government must have a concensus budget passed or it is an abject failure IMO is a big ol red herring.

Interum stop gap spending of absolutely essensal programs at current levels is automatic. And those programs that do not get funded and start screaming the loudest get emergency funding those that are unworthy yet scream bitch and mule for funding get the added benifit of public oversight.

Oh look, actual talking points instead of labels, finally something to respond to.

Emergency supplemental spending is a load of crap. It's allowed our budget to bloat to enormous size, spending it on programs that need to be trimmed. It doesn't renew things at the same level, it renews things at the same level of inflation. So not only are the hard decisions about what funding should be cut not being made, those budget items are continually increasing in size. Thanks to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, emergency spending bills are devoid of the level of justification and spending limits that appropriately-passed budgets are subject to.

I may have liberal social views, but government bloat pisses me off. And to see a congressman in a congress that has been too busy finding ways to over fund their pet projects whining about the prospect of actually keeping their butts in Washington to perform the function for which they were elected is pathetic. Just because Congress manages to find ways to get money spent does not mean they are fulfilling their duty of overseeing the budget. They are completely skirting around it, and it surprises me to see someone who is usually rather rabidly on the side of smaller government arguing for one of the most bloat-inducing practices in recent political memory.

Tramspotter · 01-02-2007, 05:56 PM

I added to it by not being clear but you are confusing stop-gap under Continued Resolution funding which adds no new items and is usually lower than the budgets that were not passed in the first place and Emergency Suplemental (IE Iraq war funding and Katrina relief) to which riders and pork usualy cling to like socks to a nylon blanket fresh out of the dryer...

And as for bloat I remember you piling on to the "Contract on America" when there were actual reforms with a good chance of passing that would on the face of them reign in spending on pork. Were you in favor of a ballanced budget amendment? Dems and republiocrats killed it but good completely misrepresenting a decrease in the rate of groth as draconian cuts. Cuts that would literaly steal school lunches from the hands of kids etc etc. Same deal for line item veto or attempts to kill the horific beast that enables the yearly lurch towards expansionism the Omnibus spending Bill; a practice that I am sure the new spendthrift congress won't pick back up...

I have no love for pork spending Republicans but if there was a Democratic alternitive stripped of pet pork projects that had full party support that was less than the republican budget and taking Iraq/Katrina out of the equasion which both passed last year with bipartisan support. If they could leave that piggybank off the table and still do better then I would conceede that democrats would have a better shot at implementing sound financial stewardship of public funds... I doubt you could provide it though since the Democrat alternatives I found were consistantly 17-19 Billion more than the current CR and the alternitives that show it lower than the presidents proposed budget seem each to take the difference retroactively and wholly out of proposed IRAQ spending or from budgeted non emergency DOD.

Oh and before you think oh ooooh oooh I found one I would also apriciate not being taxed up the arse to do it either.

Ghoulish Delight · 01-02-2007, 06:42 PM

Again, what have I said that has anything to do with Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative? The whole Congressional attitude for the last couple of decades has created this mess. And it's come to a head with a Congress that spent the most and spent the least amount of time and effort to stem it. It happened to be a Republican controlled congress, but nowhere did I put the blame on Republicans for that. Is there a correlation? Perhaps, but I don't really give crap. All I care is that whomever is in there gets off their butt and reverses this idiotic trend.

Tramspotter · 01-02-2007, 07:47 PM

First I took issue with with your idea that Congressional elected service should be treated like some sort of job and not as a privelidge and stewardship and responsibility.

1. Carere politicians usualy = bad government

Then I took issue with your pragmatic idea that spending taxpayers money in washington should be a sit down and get it done no matter what compromises must be made sit in timeout type simple issue well that combined with even people of your ilk should understand toned post (Hence Kettle ref)

2. Congress not using power of the purse / Gridlock = prefered by me usualy opposed to the sloppy hand of government unleashed when they do

And finally I make the case that when Idealistic fiscal & religious conservatives layed out the contract with America most of the <<<stand alone legislation>>> related to getting spending and congresses own house in order as you claim to want to achieve was torpedoed roundly by Democrats with help from a large the lets not rock the boat and keep the gravy flowing Republican contingent.

No variants or fixes to these sweeping proposals have since dared been offered. Most Socialists and progressives were out motherfvcking their "Contract on America" which would have made it far harder to spend like a drunken sailor and add pork riders on bills...

3. Many still sitting in Congress voted down these self restrictive reforms those that proposed them had big bucks thrown against them. You go in trying to reform the beast and it will try and eat you for breakfast.

I would like to think better of this new congress and what they say they want to do but many of them were there then and were hardly constructive or onboard with this type of reform. They might say they are there to clean house but all I see is the same warmed over socialist BS no real reform just shifting power pushing an agenda and rewriting the rules to ensure their continued rule.

Nephythys · 01-08-2007, 09:49 AM

wheee- lookit how long that lasted-LOL

Quote:

DEM VOW ALREADY BROKEN: HOUSE SETS 4-DAY WORK WEEK
Sun Jan 07 2007 15:03:38 ET

Democrats ran to expand the work week in the House to 5 days.

But guess how long that lasted?

Not even one week!

"Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week" front-paged the WASHINGTON POST in December.

Majority leader Steny Hoyer said members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2 p.m. Friday.

Explained the POST: "Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January."

But on the morning after the night before, on the first full week of the new congress, Hoyer has pulled back from his vow!

A Hoyer press release obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT boldly declares: "Monday, January 8, 2007: The House is not in session."

Hill sources claim The House is taking Monday 'off' this week, because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida.

And, of course, the following Monday is the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

100 hours...starting...soon

Developing...

Football- LOL- yeah, that outweighs the "agenda"

heehee

Link

sleepyjeff · 01-08-2007, 04:59 PM

Every time a law is passed the liberty bell rings a little duller......I am glad they are only going to work 4 days

01-02-2007, 01:12 PM	#4
Tramspotter Show me on the bear. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: LA Posts: 445	I am not trying to dissuade you from that position (self made box) or the series of positions and rules that you laydown for others yet can't seem to follow yourself. However my point that you continue to sidestep by getting all bent does in a way sidestep yours so I can see why you might see it as "Dismissive." My Position is that we are better served by a government that does little to nothing substansial, than one that overreaches and meddles and makes a mokery of oversight. Your entire point that the government must have a concensus budget passed or it is an abject failure IMO is a big ol red herring. Interum stop gap spending of absolutely essensal programs at current levels is automatic. And those programs that do not get funded and start screaming the loudest get emergency funding those that are unworthy yet scream bitch and mule for funding get the added benifit of public oversight. Anyone of any Ilk should be able to at least grasp the alternate without feeling thier own position is attacked, well anyone with a point that is worth defending. Chosing to argue that alternate is of course completely optional. And as far as Mr Kettle is concerned I am continualy astounded by how someone with such a dismissive argumentitive style is so easily riled up when his own iron clad arguments are poo pooed in any real or precieved way.
	Submit to Quotes

01-02-2007, 05:56 PM	#6
Tramspotter Show me on the bear. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: LA Posts: 445	I added to it by not being clear but you are confusing stop-gap under Continued Resolution funding which adds no new items and is usually lower than the budgets that were not passed in the first place and Emergency Suplemental (IE Iraq war funding and Katrina relief) to which riders and pork usualy cling to like socks to a nylon blanket fresh out of the dryer... And as for bloat I remember you piling on to the "Contract on America" when there were actual reforms with a good chance of passing that would on the face of them reign in spending on pork. Were you in favor of a ballanced budget amendment? Dems and republiocrats killed it but good completely misrepresenting a decrease in the rate of groth as draconian cuts. Cuts that would literaly steal school lunches from the hands of kids etc etc. Same deal for line item veto or attempts to kill the horific beast that enables the yearly lurch towards expansionism the Omnibus spending Bill; a practice that I am sure the new spendthrift congress won't pick back up... I have no love for pork spending Republicans but if there was a Democratic alternitive stripped of pet pork projects that had full party support that was less than the republican budget and taking Iraq/Katrina out of the equasion which both passed last year with bipartisan support. If they could leave that piggybank off the table and still do better then I would conceede that democrats would have a better shot at implementing sound financial stewardship of public funds... I doubt you could provide it though since the Democrat alternatives I found were consistantly 17-19 Billion more than the current CR and the alternitives that show it lower than the presidents proposed budget seem each to take the difference retroactively and wholly out of proposed IRAQ spending or from budgeted non emergency DOD. Oh and before you think oh ooooh oooh I found one I would also apriciate not being taxed up the arse to do it either.
	Submit to Quotes

01-02-2007, 06:42 PM	#7
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Again, what have I said that has anything to do with Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative? The whole Congressional attitude for the last couple of decades has created this mess. And it's come to a head with a Congress that spent the most and spent the least amount of time and effort to stem it. It happened to be a Republican controlled congress, but nowhere did I put the blame on Republicans for that. Is there a correlation? Perhaps, but I don't really give crap. All I care is that whomever is in there gets off their butt and reverses this idiotic trend. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

01-02-2007, 07:47 PM	#8
Tramspotter Show me on the bear. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: LA Posts: 445	First I took issue with with your idea that Congressional elected service should be treated like some sort of job and not as a privelidge and stewardship and responsibility. 1. Carere politicians usualy = bad government Then I took issue with your pragmatic idea that spending taxpayers money in washington should be a sit down and get it done no matter what compromises must be made sit in timeout type simple issue well that combined with even people of your ilk should understand toned post (Hence Kettle ref) 2. Congress not using power of the purse / Gridlock = prefered by me usualy opposed to the sloppy hand of government unleashed when they do And finally I make the case that when Idealistic fiscal & religious conservatives layed out the contract with America most of the <<<stand alone legislation>>> related to getting spending and congresses own house in order as you claim to want to achieve was torpedoed roundly by Democrats with help from a large the lets not rock the boat and keep the gravy flowing Republican contingent. No variants or fixes to these sweeping proposals have since dared been offered. Most Socialists and progressives were out motherfvcking their "Contract on America" which would have made it far harder to spend like a drunken sailor and add pork riders on bills... 3. Many still sitting in Congress voted down these self restrictive reforms those that proposed them had big bucks thrown against them. You go in trying to reform the beast and it will try and eat you for breakfast. I would like to think better of this new congress and what they say they want to do but many of them were there then and were hardly constructive or onboard with this type of reform. They might say they are there to clean house but all I see is the same warmed over socialist BS no real reform just shifting power pushing an agenda and rewriting the rules to ensure their continued rule.
	Submit to Quotes

01-08-2007, 04:59 PM	#10
sleepyjeff Go Hawks Go! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parkrose Posts: 2,632	Every time a law is passed the liberty bell rings a little duller......I am glad they are only going to work 4 days __________________ River Guardian-less
	Submit to Quotes