[CNSNEWS] People attending a House Rules Committee hearing on Saturday evening burst into laughter when Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) affirmed to House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R.-Ky.) that President Barack Obama They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... , by threatening to veto a continuing resolution to fund the government past Monday if it includes a House amendment to delay Obamacare, has thus "drawn a red line" on the CR.
The committee was meeting to approve the rule by which the House would consider the Senate-passed CR and amendments to it that would repeal a tax on medical devices and delay Obamacare for one year.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.), the ranking member of the committee, read a position statement she said was from the administration that threatened the veto.
"If the president was presented with H.J.Res. 59 as amended by the amendments, he would veto the bill," said Slaughter, reading from the administration's statement.
A few minutes later, after Rep. McGovern had expressed his opposition to what the Republican majority was planning to do, House Appropriations Chairman Rodgers, who had briefly testified to the committee about the amendments, asked McGovern if he would yield.
The ensuing exchange between Rogers and McGovern on Obama's veto threat caused the committee chamber to burst into laughter.
Rogers: "Would the gentleman yield?
McGovern: "I happily yield."
Rogers: "You say the president has threatened to veto the bill?"
McGovern: "No, he hasn't threatened. He said he absolutely will veto."
Rogers: "He's drawn a red line has he?"
McGovern: "Yep."
At this point, the small hearing room--which was largely filled with committee members, other members of Congress who had come to testify and congressional staff--burst into laughter.
Rep. McGovern then stated his belief that the president was serious about his then-just-issued veto threat.
"And, you know what," said McGovern, "I think he's very serious about this."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.)
...Hey, Jimmy - there's just a few thousand jobs hanging in the balance in the Merrimack Valley of Massachusetts (and NH, if that concerns you at all) that will be made redundant on the imposition of the medical devices tax (granted, these are outside of his district, so what does he care?)
[CANADAFREEPRESS] Yesterday, 25 Senate Republicans stood shoulder to shoulder with their Democrat counterparts and helped the Continuing Budget Resolution pass cloture. Despite Ted Cruz's efforts, and his warning that "a vote for cloture was a vote for Obamacare," Lindsey Graham ... the endangered South Carolina RINO... was eager to join hands and sing Cumbaya with his alleged Dem opponents.
With the help of people like Graham, the CR easily passed cloture, allowing Harry Reid ... the charismatic senator-for-life from Nevada, currently majority leader ... to introduce an amendment restoring funding for Obamacare. The amendment passed with a simple 51 vote majority. This time, since his vote was now a meaningless gesture, Graham tried to hide by oh-so-bravely voting against the Dems.
Clearly, Graham thinks you're either so dumb that you won't notice what he did, or he thinks you're just too stupid to understand it. There's simply no other explanation for the shameless, bald-faced, crock of manure he's been shoveling in the wake of his cloture vote.
Check out this reality-defying statement from his website:
"Today, I proudly voted to defund Obamacare, and I am proud that every Senate Republican has united in support of the House-passed defund Obamacare provision. I only wish that more Senate Democrats, many of whom were responsible for Obamacare's passage into law, would have voted with us.
With Democrats in control of the Senate, we needed Democrats to join with the American people who want Obamacare stopped in its tracks. Based upon the Democrats unanimous votes in support of funding Obamacare, they must not have gotten the message.
I fought and voted against Obamacare in 2010. Since then, I have tried to stop the law's implementation any way I can"
No. He's not kidding. He's really trying to pretend that he's been a leader in the effort to defund the ACA since the beginning. After his initial statement, he took to Twitter, where he continued to outline his valiant effort to defund this train wreck of a law.
His feed reads like the fever-dream ramblings of someone who's either completely lost hold of reality, or is deeply frightened by the forthcoming consequences of his actions...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lindsay Graham is correct (this time) - we are (statistically) stupid; what more proof is needed than the election of the whole crowd in DC?
#3
The republic is over. They're just keeping up the facade as long as possible to keep the masses from going full Greek/Spanish/etc who hide wealth and business from the tax farmers. Of course, those in the oligarchy already own their representatives in the government to grant them ways to protect their 'piece of the action'.
#4
You are probably right, P2K. But Graham is up for reelection in 2014. Obviously he will have the advantages of incumbency and a healthy war chest. But we can still hope he will have an opponent in the primary who will remember this charade and effectively remind the voters. I even have a campaign slogan: Dump the RINO. Kinda catchy, huh?
Will be an interesting election. The Tame Republicans figure they have all but eliminated these upstart Tea Party types. Would love to send a few more of them packing in '14 -- to be replaced with Cruz and Rand types. Swapping a McCain for a Cruz is in many ways a bigger win than swapping a generic D for a generic R.
[Washington Examiner] Bachmann pointed to a recent Washington Post article which included a long list of government shutdowns in the last 35 years. "We were there 17 times," she said. "Five times under Jimmy Carter they did a government shutdown. Eight times under Reagan -- twice in October before the 1984 landslide. And they didn't worry about it, they just did it."
"I was looking at some of the history," Bachmann continued. "When the Republicans did the slowdown in '95, they did two, one in November and then one in December. What they were fighting over, the first one, was getting the budget to balance in seven years. And the second one was over Bill Clinton trying to do a sleight of hand -- he wanted to use Office of Management and Budget numbers versus Congressional Budget Office numbers. So the Republicans shut the joint down over using OMB numbers over the CBO. My, how times have changed. We're considered radical to have a ten-year balance under Paul Ryan. We're going to shut the government down under OMB versus CBO ? That's what they did then. Now, in my opinion, I don't think I'd be shutting the government down over that."
But even then, House Republicans did not suffer terrible consequences, as Bachmann and others point out. After the shutdowns, the GOP was re-elected to control of the House in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 before losing in 2006.
So Bachmann, and many other Republicans, remain unafraid as the clock ticks down. "I don't get upset about brinksmanship," she told me. "That's what negotiation is. I was a federal tax lawyer. That's all I did -- negotiation. And in negotiation, you usually don't get anywhere until the final five minutes, and then everybody realizes OK, we're going to have to break and actually make this thing happen. That's how negotiation works."
#1
The Bammer Admin, GOP-Right, + many DemoLefties all know that the crushing US Debt has to come down + be paid off - IMO the issue here is ULTERIOR MOTIVES, espec as per PRE-2015 TRADITIONAL US NATIONALISM + "SOLE" SOVEREIGNTY, VERSUS POST-2015 GLOBALISM + ANTI-US "MULTILATERAL/MULTIMATIONAL" SOVEREIGNTY...
And the like ...
No, ULTERIOR = ALTERIOR = CONTERIOR = ANTERIOR MOTIVES??
#2
1 - regardless the Party Organ Media will always blame the Republicans. To paraphrase a Donk - what difference does it make.
2 - by the second time around in '95, the public started to shift and Clinton's numbers were dropping (and they were paying attention to those).
3 - if it goes long enough, both parties will see their numbers drop. They're like climbers linked by a rope.
4 - Congress' numbers have been nearly single digit for quite a while. They can't go much lower.
5 - The Pres has cross the 40% and is in decline, this will only accelerate it to his 'koolaid' level of support. Unless he's prepared to openly declare the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', he won't have much to work with particularly as Obamacare will eat the electorate by Nov 14 who'll remember he and he alone stuck them with it.
#4
Best option is to separate the military pay from the package, pass it and send it to Reid with the notation that till that's done, no more talking. If he tables it or votes it down, the Trunks can use it as a club as the Donks use racism. What an opening - "Our men and women are on the front lines for our safety and security and the team of Obama and Reid back stab those willing to give the last full measure for 'us'. Their families back home are dependent upon the pay for their basics of food, clothing and shelter and the Desperate Duo would sacrifice them to exercise power and dominion." If there's one thing that probably cause the phones in the Senators offices to melt down, that certain would. Added benefit would be that the military rank and file knows who has their back and its not the ones working towards a one party system.
[Huffpoo] The planned documentary on Hillary Clinton that caused CNN to be banned from 2016 Republican debates has been canceled, its director said on Monday.
In a blog for HuffPost, Charles Ferguson said that it was a near total stonewalling by Clinton and her associates that caused him to pull out of the project, rather than any pressure from CNN:
When I approached people for interviews, I discovered that nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not Arkansas State Troopers -- and certainly nobody who works with the Clintons, wants access to the Clintons, or dreams of a position in a Hillary Clinton administration.
Not even journalists who want access, which can easily be taken away. I even sensed potential difficulty in licensing archival footage from CBN (Pat Robertson) and from Fox. After approaching well over a hundred people, only two persons Slick and Chelsea who had ever dealt with Mrs. Clinton would agree to an on-camera interview, and I suspected that even they would back out.
...After painful reflection, I decided that I couldn't make a film of which I would be proud. And so I'm cancelling. (Not because of any pressure from CNN -- quite the contrary. I blame Benghazi cooties, Issa, and things to come.
#2
"Not because of any pressure from CNN -- quite the contrary."
"No. Certainly not."
And then his lips (and other body parts) fell off.
Probably just as well due to his enlistment potential for the 'Billary Witness Erasure' program.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/30/2013 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Richard, he is already a marked man. If (G*d forbid) Hildebeast wins in 2016, he can expect yearly IRS audits, EPA, ATF and other SWAT teams, and constant NSA surveillance.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
09/30/2013 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If it were an honest documentary, I would say that she would not want it to air. Especially if she is planning to run for Prez. But then no one makes honest documentaries anymore.
You think the headline is confusing? It is actually quite accurate. She wants to eliminate the gas tax paid by consumers and replace it with one paid by wholesalers. But the consumers wouldn't have to pay that? Really?
The chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees infrastructure projects said on Wednesday that the federal government should replace its 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline purchases with a fee that is paid by oil wholesalers.
Getting rid of the federal gas tax in lieu of a wholesale oil tax increase would help close an approximately $20 billion shortfall in transportation spending Congress is looking to solve, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said. The present gas tax raises about $35 billion, but is $20 B short. So we are really talking about a 57% gas tax increase cloaked in the sheep's clothing of a tax cut. Surprised?
"There are many ideas out there, and the one that I'm leaning toward myself, although this is going to be a decision of the [Senate] Finance Committee ... is to do away with the per-gallon fee at the pump and replace it with this sales fee as they've done in Virginia and Maryland," Boxer said during a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/30/2013 07:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What you see listed on the pump as taxes per gallon is but a small fraction of reality. The taxes on crude oil from the lease and wellhead to pump is absolutely staggering. Hidden taxes paid in petroleum transportation and marketing are substantial as well. Oil is probably the highest taxed commodity available.
#6
I believe the bait is to cut out the at-the-pump tax, institute the wholesale tax, and then, in a couple years, when Short Attention Span Disorder kicks in, call for a "modest" at the pump tax.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/30/2013 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#7
But the consumers wouldn't have to pay that? Really?
Yeah, only the evil Big Corporations would have to pay that. So sayeth the liberal, so regurgitateth their mindless drones. That's why I think there should only be income taxes. If people saw what they actually paid in taxes, there would be blood in the streets.
I would abolish income tax withholding altogether and force everyone to write a check every month or at least have automatic deduction out of their own bank account - so that they actually *see* the money being taken from them. Then people would be a lot more concerned about their tax rate.
Problem is that people have grown accustomed to thinking that their 'net pay' is what they earn and not that it is what is left after the government gets their [rather large] cut of what they earn.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[CNSNEWS] People attending a House Rules Committee hearing on Saturday evening burst into laughter when Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) affirmed to House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R.-Ky.) that President 
Lindsey Graham
Harry Reid
