Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Doesn't take into account wars and other critical emergency situations . . . thus, a non-starter.

 

Maybe we should just ask Iraq for our trillion dollars back.

 

Roger Ebert nails it, again:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/07/the_republicans_exit_history.html

. . . and away we go.

 

Carlton- We get it. You think Obama has no plan. You've said that about ninety different ways and methods.

I mean, you're wrong, but whatever.

 

So, why can't we see it, and why can't we know which Democrats in Congress support his plan?

Getting House Dems to accept spending cuts is just as difficult as getting House Republicans to accept tax increases.

But, no one wants to discuss that.

 

I somewhat dispute your second sentence. Democrats in Congress are often (too often, IMO) willing to sell out their base. One reason is because there are still significant numbers of Democrats in Congress who represent otherwise lean-Republican constituencies. A Democratic Senator from Nebraska or a Democratic Rep from Oklahoma doesn't represent the same viewpoints that a Democrat from New York represents.

However, another reason is that many Democrats in Congress, no matter what they profess publicly, answer to many of the same money interests as Republicans. Because without that money, you can't run a campaign.

 

Senators have to appeal to an entire state.

The way Congressional lines have been drawn, many House seats are very safe. After last year's mid-terms, the Dems lost many/most of the swing districts.

Many of them have no fear of losing a general election campaign. They were just elected with 70% - 95% of the vote.

The bigger fear would be a primary challenger.

 

For everyone's enjoyment ...

Part 1:

Part 2:

 

I'd quibble with the notion that the splintering of the Republican party and the coalition that is being formed within the party are somehow new things. They are new for the Republicans, yes. But the Democrats have LONG been a coalition of many interests. They may be more uniform now than they were when Dixiecrats still existed (so you had northeastern liberals and state's right southerners in the same party), but it's still a broad coalition.

That the GOP is heading in that direction isn't the death of the GOP by any stretch. They may be in the infancy of having to learn how to exist as a broader coalition, but this is a familiar position for a party to be in.

Right now, they're stubbing their toe. Ask any hard-core liberal if they EVER get their way in the Democratic Party. The Democrats have long since figured out their coalition can't be run by one wing of the group.

 

Tell me, libtard, what are the specifics of the President's plan? Both sides can call names, you know. I want specifics as to the President's proposal...none of this "he's been negotiating" crap. I want to know exactly what he is proposing, when it will take effect, what tax increases he wants and where the spending cuts are. No painting with a broad brush...skip the generalities and give me the specifics. Good luck.

 

You mean the only ones that have passed anything? That makes sense.

 

Oh. You mean that sham balanced budget amendment they knew was a dead letter the minute they proposed it? The one that everyone with half-a-brain knew was political theater designed to placate the Teabaggers before a real deal is made?

Yes. The days they wasted on that were very productive to this process.