Article

2011-02-27 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2011-02-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 Compromise means 'we won't expand the government by 100,000 new federal employees, but only 99,000.'

Posted by Glenmore 2011-02-27 00:06|| 2011-02-27 00:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Boy howdy, compared to that meathead I am a freaking white supremist. I never thought I could call myself a conservative until this empty suit showed up.

You know of course that when he says compromise, he is, like all leftists, meaning do it his way or else. That of course is compromise amongst the nu nu fringe of the extreme left.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2011-02-27 00:24|| 2011-02-27 00:24|| Front Page Top

Posted by gorb 2011-02-27 02:12|| 2011-02-27 02:12|| Front Page Top

#4 Republican senator Rob Portman said his party is seeking to make "sensible reductions" to grow job opportunities, "not to shutdown the government."
Nice for public consumption, but I hope the GOP is smarter than that behind the scene. Reducing government expenditures can only put more government workers into unemployment, for the short term. I see NO WAY that unemployment will improve much between now and Election Day 2012. The GOP offers pain now to avoid disaster later. The Dems offer business as usual, aka 'shuck and jive', with later disaster certain.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-02-27 05:30|| 2011-02-27 05:30|| Front Page Top

#5 OR you can vote "present."

Posted by Dribble2716 2011-02-27 09:03|| 2011-02-27 09:03|| Front Page Top

#6 Note this is from Iran Press TV -- even the American media is giving up on his crapola

Posted by regular joe 2011-02-27 09:57|| 2011-02-27 09:57|| Front Page Top

#7 Its an intelligence test for the Stupid Party.

Posted by CincinnatusChili 2011-02-27 10:20|| 2011-02-27 10:20|| Front Page Top

#8 The Pubs have proposed $100 billion in spending reductions. The public debt is $14 trillion. The proposed reductions are only 0.7% of the debt if my reckoning is correct.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-02-27 10:53|| 2011-02-27 10:53|| Front Page Top

#9 JohnQC, it's even worse than that. IIUC, the current budget would run a deficit of $1.5 trillion if extended through the end of FY11. Pubs want to reduce that deficit by $100 billion (to $1.4 trillion).

Thus, if Pubs get their way, by the end of FY11, the national debt would increase from $14 trillion to "only" $15.4 trillion, instead of $15.5 trillion.

If this was my personal household budget, I think I'd dye my hair, pack a few things, and just kinda split in the middle of the night.

Posted by RandomJD 2011-02-27 12:18|| 2011-02-27 12:18|| Front Page Top

#10 Isn't the budget they're currently working on last year's budget, the one Nancy Pelosi never tried to get passed while she was Speaker? After that gets passed, although we're already 3/4 through the spending year -- clawing back unspent Stimulus expenditures and not providing funding for Obamacare as well as the other small expenditures -- then there is this year's budget, due to start in June, and next year's budget. Or have I lost track?

Posted by trailing wife 2011-02-27 13:08|| 2011-02-27 13:08|| Front Page Top

#11 TW, the fiscal year runs from Oct 1 to Sep 30, so we're about 5 months into FY11. The budget they're currently working on is this year, FY11, which ends Sep 30, 2011.

Yes, this would be the budget Democrats, controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, could have passed and made it as big as they liked, but didn't, because it coincided with midterm elections and they would've been slaughtered no matter what they did.

Instead they just got a "shellacking," and by means of this calculated procrastination, are now positioned to blame whatever doesn't poll well on that nasty Republican majority in the House (with the assistance of the lapdog media, of course).

Hope and Change!

Posted by RandomJD 2011-02-27 13:46|| 2011-02-27 13:46|| Front Page Top

#12 Got to work on Zero based budgeting. No, I don't mean Oh. I mean, making no assumptions and looking at everything. Nothing sacred. We will also need an amendment or something to enable line item veto. Two many poison pills in legislation. Also, we need to stop riders. Each bill stands on its own, its contents all related. We cannot afford business as usual, we used up all or chips.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2011-02-27 14:20|| 2011-02-27 14:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Thank you, RandomJD. My understanding of matters financial is sadly limited. :-( So the bottom line is they can only address part of the year in this budget vote, because a great many things they would otherwise vote on have already been spent, yes?

Posted by trailing wife 2011-02-27 14:54|| 2011-02-27 14:54|| Front Page Top

#14 TW, when Congress finally passes the budget for FY11, that will set the sum total the US government will spend for FY11. IIUC, that amount will include what has already been spent since Oct, which so far has been authorized by continuing resolutions (CRs) - basically, temporary extensions of the FY10 budget until Congress works up the nerve to vote on an actual official budget.

Once that's done, they'll have to pretty much turn around and get right to work on the budget for FY12. B.O. has already proposed one that's a real stinker, to force Pubs to play bad cop to Dems' good cop.

As a voter, I think of it as being courted by two men, each of whom are deeply in debt. One wants to take out a big loan for a tricked-out Harley chopper. He's too fat and lazy to fight. The other wants to borrow a bit less to buy a sleek Ninja crotch-rocket. He can fight, and win, but every now and then he gives you a black eye.

There are no others to choose from. Which one do you pick? That is, after you cry your eyes out.

Posted by RandomJD 2011-02-27 15:56|| 2011-02-27 15:56|| Front Page Top

#15 Bloomberg reported that Geitner was in front of the Senate Finance Committee suggesting as part of the greater corp tax reformation, go after LLCs & Sub-S's.

...The recommendation, which Geithner repeated in a meeting with reporters this week at Bloomberg News in Washington, would affect income earned by the nations largest law firms, investment partnerships and so-called S corporations. It would more than double, to about $3 trillion, the amount of business income potentially affected by tax-law changes.

Posted by anonymous2u 2011-02-27 16:10|| 2011-02-27 16:10|| Front Page Top

#16 Boehner has issued a CR for the deadline 3/4/11 which includes a $2 Billion cut. It's bait for the Donks to bite, showing that cuts are possible. If they don't bite, there's a shutdown with the Reps looking responsible: "if we can't cut $2 billion, what's the point of discussing anything?" It also has a threat - he says that the cuts will increase $2 billion every week til they approve a budget. It takes the Obama/MSM "GOP shut down the gubbamint!!11!!" argument away, and starts the cycle of cuts.

It's a good move. You do realize we don't have the Senate or President?

Posted by Frank G 2011-02-27 16:58|| 2011-02-27 16:58|| Front Page Top

#17 Some compromise. Since Obama has become president, the $1 trillion per year stimulus has become a permanent fixture of the federal budget. Fed spending has gone from 19-20% to 25% of GDP and is still rising.

Posted by Pearl Gleaper1127 2011-02-27 17:23|| 2011-02-27 17:23|| Front Page Top

#18 Frank, we don't have the media either.

Sure, Boehner's move is clever. But he's still playing on Dems' terms: a parry here and feint there in an attempt to shift the public's perception of who owns this. It doesn't matter. House Republicans will be branded as unreasonable obstructionists anyway, and even if they got everything they're asking for, it's still just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by RandomJD 2011-02-27 17:39|| 2011-02-27 17:39|| Front Page Top

#19 I also heard some talk about a "balanced budget amendment".

What do they mean "amendment"? To the Constitution, I hope?

Posted by gorb 2011-02-27 21:34|| 2011-02-27 21:34|| Front Page Top

#20 There are no others to choose from. Which one do you pick? That is, after you cry your eyes out.

If the hypothetical were real? Invite them both over for tea and carrot cake, and mention in passing that I couldn't possibly go out with a man who didn't pay off his debts every month -- it's a matter of character. And while I understand the appeal of motorcycles (my sister has one, for which she paid cash), I've never enjoyed them myself. If they aren't smart enough to figure it out right away, I can be celibate for a while. If I am the only girl, as they are the only men, eventually they'll notice that their motorcycles aren't doing the trick. And if they don't, I absolutely don't want either one of them -- can you imagine the kind of children they'd father?

There's a good reason I don't get any closer to politics than voting.

("Crotch-rocket"? Hurrah, new vocabulary! :-) )

Posted by trailing wife 2011-02-27 22:58|| 2011-02-27 22:58|| Front Page Top

00:17 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:23 trailing wife
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:05 rammer
22:58 trailing wife
22:57 Steven
22:56 Harry Thavith9398
22:49 Steve White
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:35 gorb
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:33 gorb
22:30 swksvolFF
22:29 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
22:28 gorb
22:25 swksvolFF
22:10 Abu Uluque
22:07 Abu Uluque
22:05 Water Modem
21:57 twobyfour
21:50 Pappy
21:50 Skunky Glin****