Bipartisan Budget Deal a Disaster

No votes yet

Things are getting bad according to the overweight talk show host and his sycophant, maybe it's time to buy gold http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-the-beck-ed-schultz-hawks-precious-g...

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

To extremists of the far left or the far right, compromise is equivalent to surrender. You could just as well post a speech given By Sen. Ted Cruz attacking this bill from the far right.
The far right, currently, is more dangerous, however. That is because, Mike Papantonio (the man shown on this clip, and whom I had never heard of) hasn't a ghost of a chance of being the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, while Sen. Cruz has a great shot at being the Republican nominee. The Republican Party is so frightened of the far right that this compromise plan was almost derailed by a handful of far right Republican senators, even after it had passed with a strong bi-partisan vote in the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives.
Government governs best when it governs from the middle. And if you don't believe that the current Republican Party has a serious problem with far right intimidation, ask New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie or Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

Mike Papantonio is a successful trial attorney. He hosts the Ring of Fire radio and tv shows. He is truly independent but is not a Tea Bagger. He is up and coming with his sharp critiques of all politicians and conservative groups.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Any budget "deal" that continues to borrow money in order to support spending, is by definition a disaster.

Government that governs from the middle is constantly compromising on all principles, and so the least common denominator prevails. And that's bankrupted the US federal government. That's hardly governing "best". Liberals will never agree, and in fact Liberals never even understand what I just said. They only understand mob rule and government looting.

Principles today, particularly moral ones, are considered "extremist". That's the heart of the mental illness that is modern Liberalism.

Federal deficits are NOT inevitable. Here are the last 4 budgets overseen by Democratic President Bill Clinton. All had SURPLUSES.
These are by federal fiscal years:
1998 ....$69 billion
1999...$125 billion
2000...$236 billion
2001...$128 Billion
These four budget SURPLUSES were a result of a Democratic president COMPROMISING with a COMPROMISING Republican Congress.
As soon as W was elected with a majority of Republicans still in both Houses of Congress for W's first 6 years, taxes were cut, two wars were funded, budget surpluses were turned into deficits, and we were plunged into the Great Recession!
Sorry for these facts GZ. I know upsetting it is to you when facts get in the way of your opinions! You, quite obviously, are among those extremists who equate compromise to surrender. How sad for you!

You forgot to say Bush was the worst President since the 1930's.

Where are the corresponding surpluses from the Democratic President Barack Obama?

All I hear now is the chirping of crickets from you.

The matter at hand is exactly as I stated: The current bipartisan environment is one of compromise against US. We the taxpayers end up compromising, where the politicians make NO compromise with each other. Why should they? The American people are somnolent. Politically we fly over the Land of Nod while they scurry over our house stealing all the goodies, happily gorging themselves to the sound of our snoring.

Today, what's called a "compromise" goes like this:

1. Party A wants a 10% increase in his budget. This requires Party B's budget to go down 10%.
2. Party B wants a 10% increase in his own budget. This requires Party A's budget to go down 10%.
3. Therefore Party A and Party B meet, achieve 5% increases in all their budgets, and borrow to make up the difference.

Oh, that's a fuckin' compromise, all right. Notice who got STUCK WITH THE BILL.

Are you really so hard up for an argument that you'd fall so easily into this sort of logic trap?

No, shelve that question. My real question remains above in my first sentence, to wit: Where are the surpluses from your Chocolate Messiah? You even re-elected that turd. He didn't produce before, and he doesn't produce now. His production is of the smellier sort.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.