Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Az - curious - did you cash your Bush stimulus checks?

 

I don't recall receiving one.

Did I miss a government handout? Damn. That's my pottery money.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will appoint Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington, Max Baucus of Montana, and John Kerry of Massachusetts to the new super committee tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction by November 23, according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with Reid’s decision, which is expected to be made public as early as Wednesday. Additionally, Murray is expected to co-chair the committee, officially named the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, along with a still unnamed House Republican. A spokesman for Reid did not respond to a request for comment.

Reid’s decision to tap Murray will likely be met with scrutiny, as she is also chairing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2012 election cycle. But she is also a member of leadership, a senior member of the Budget Committee, and a woman on what is likely to be a male-dominated committee.



Baucus is chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee with jurisdiction over many areas, including entitlement programs, that the committee is expected to examine. Kerry, meanwhile, was selected for his stature and Senate tenure.

The remaining nine lawmakers have yet to be announced. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., each must name three members to the panel by August 16.
http://www.nationaljournal.com//congress/source-democrats-murray-baucus-kerry-on-super-committee-20110809

 

A. Bartlett is not "the left."
B. For you to read my post and opine that I'm making excuses for Obama's incompetency is a failure in reading comprehension on your part. It's a given that one will seek compromise in a political process whether it's a formal body or resolving a dispute among family members. How you go about achieving that compromise is the whole issue. It's not "good intentions" to seek compromise. It's just a given.

That's akin to a free swinger striking out and, as an observation, you say "that guy needs to quit swinging for the fences all the time." Your logic would criticize the observation because it implied that the hitter tried to do something positive (hit a home run).

Obviously, that's flawed logic. Of course Obama was trying to accomplish something. What the hell, man, sometimes I wonder if you argue just to read yourself argue.

 

Don't lose too much sleep over it. That bunch was never that smart to start out with, witness the doddering senile nitwit they anointed as their patron saint.


And what do you think was the whole idea of supply-side economics in the first place?

Simple. To fuck You and Me out of all our money and give it to Them.

And destroy the idea the government has any function other than to make the rich richer.

 

And then people found out they actually elected a Marxist and the shit hit the fan as his policies drove the economy off a cliff and debt and deficits to historic, unheard-of levels.

 

That's the stupidest post yet. A Marxist? Shit hit the fan in the economy? What had it hit before the election? This is a failure of mess clean up.

Tell me all about his childhood in Kenya while you are at it. Geesh.

 

Someday, somewhere the citizenry will recognize that the Government, specifically the president, does not "drive the economy off a cliff."

 

You're still ascribing good intentions to his incompetence.

It's not that his ideas aren't good. It's not that his strategy is not good. It's not that the public has rejected his ideas.

It's that he's intent on compromising.

Now, you may not be happy with it, but it's still putting it in the bet possible light. He's just too nice. Too accommodating.

And, it's false. When he has the advantage, he's happy to use it. He hasn't lost battles because he's intent on compromising. He's lost because he's been beaten on occasion.

He hates to compromise. He hated extending the tax cuts. He hated this deal.

He agreed to them because he lost. Plain and simple.

 

You're crazy. He's all about compromising. Again, read back on the "Team of Rivals" parallels his campaign drew. And what do you think the "Grand Bargain" was that he was talking about -- you think he loves offering up spending cuts in programs that his constituents love? No, he wants to play "give a little get a little," only he is too naive to realize the other side will only play the latter half of that game.

He agreed to extend the tax cuts because he didn't want to cut people off unemployment. He agreed to the spending cuts and no tax increase because he didn't want to take what he viewed as a cataclysmic step regarding U.S. debts. I don't think he should have done either of these things, but that's because I think going for broke was better than compromising. But absolutely he compromised to get the most important thing he wanted in the deal, and he did get those things.

It is a weak position to be sure, which is what we are all saying. I'd prefer he take more of a Tea Party foot-stomping, hold-your-breath-till-you're-blue attitude. But to say he hates to compromise and only does it when there is no other option is ridiculous. There were other options on this debt ceiling deal.

 

I love how the lefties on here always point fingers at the righties, talking about how they just fall in line. Meanwhile, they never, ever have any criticism for their lord and savior, Barack Hussein Obama. They always talk about his intentions and how his ideas are great, yet the execution is lacking (and probably blame someone else).

Face it, Obama is a loser. He is exactly what we on the right told you he was before you cast your vote for him. He is an inexperienced, arrogant poser in way over his head. All we heard was about how everyone would be scared if Sarah Palin was "one heartbeat away" from the presidency. Meanwhile, you all voted for an idea instead of a candidate. And reality is slapping you in the face.

We all remember how the Republican Party was dead, right? There was talk about possibly eliminating term limits so Obama could be president forever. Now, after he has an actual record, it's funny to see the heartbreak as you scramble to justify your foolish support of an imbecile. Meanwhile, the rest of the country has figured him out and, regardless of how hard you try to talk yourselves out of it, he is toast in 2012. If he wins 10 states I will be amazed.