This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Pwntiff
But neither wants to bend at all.
Post by
MyTie
How is it unfair? The Democrats want to undo the tax breaks Bush gave the rich, and the Republicans want to cut funding to social programs for the poor.
Democrats want to raise taxes on rich, but it isn't fair to say Democrats: $%^& the rich. The Democrats believe that the path to a great life for everyone is through raising taxes on the super rich. This doesn't mean they hate the super rich, though. And Republicans want to cut funding to social programs for the poor because they believe these programs are inefficient and unsustainable. They don't hate poor people.But neither wants to bend at all.That's not really true. The Republicans did put forward
tax increases
, and cuts to defense, and Democrats did
agree
to cut funding to some areas of social benefits. The big contention areas were the Bush tax cuts, for Republicans, and Medicare, for Democrats. Unfortunately, the committee's challenge was made more difficult by President Obama. Since the committee was formed, he has demanded more stimulus spending and issued a veto threat against any proposed committee solution to the spending problem that was not coupled with a massive tax increase.
Despite the president's disappointing lack of leadership, I believe my co-chair, Sen. Patty Murray, and every Democrat acted with honor and integrity and negotiated in good faith to the end. It was, of course, difficult to negotiate with six Democrats who, as Democratic committee member Jim Clyburn said on Nov. 13, "never coalesced around a plan" themselves. But I believe this failure was not due to lack of effort or commitment.If I've read correctly, and I like to think that I have, every plan put forward was by Republicans, and every plan was rejected by Democrats (edit:
update
, this isn't accurate. They did propose plans, though none of them had any potential of passing). This isn't to say it is the Democrats fault. You just have two very different views of how government should act, not only by DC, but by the American people as a whole.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Additionally, I don't think it's fair to criticise Obama for refusing to go back on one of his campaign promises (ObamaCare), especially as, knowing the American media, he'd then be criticised for it by both sides if he did.
Perhaps, but the biggest complaint you get from me is Obama's proposal to spend more, and veto anything that didn't raise taxes.most of my information from the BBC because it's convenient and they don't have a dog in this fight but what
I've seen
disagrees with your final point:
Democrats did not want to concede any cuts in entitlement programmes - such as social security, and healthcare programmes for the poor and the old - unless the Republicans also agreed to tax rises.In the grander scheme of things, the BBC is very very close to being accurate, but they are still false. Republicans were not willing to raise taxes in the scope that would have pleased Democrats, and Democrats weren't willing to make meaningful cuts to spending. However, each side did make SOME concessions, and that at least, was a start.
In the end, the magnitude of changes that needs to take effect are so radical, our current government is unable to meet them.
Post by
MyTie
Lame
He said anyone who is accused could be prosecuted — even foreigners using the Internet outside Thailand.
"If a foreigner abroad clicks 'share' or clicks 'like,' then the Thai law has no jurisdiction over that, but if there is a lawsuit filed and that person then comes into Thailand, then that person will be prosecuted," Anudith told The Associated Press.
Post by
MyTie
lol
Post by
ElhonnaDS
From CNN
I find it ridiculously ironic that the last name of the family who carried out these beard and hair-cutting attacks is "Mullet".
Post by
MyTie
CNN's Larry King proves
he is crazy
and narcissistic. Crazy for the "frozen" thing, and narcissistic for the gigantic panting of himself on his wall.
Post by
MyTie
Another
job well done
, TSA.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Did you guys see this?
Post by
Adamsm
Did you guys see this?
What? Really, she got around charges for assaulting other shoppers?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Did you guys see this?
What? Really, she got around charges for assaulting other shoppers?
No- they just decided it was a misdemeanor assault, rather than a felony.
Post by
Adamsm
Did you guys see this?
What? Really, she got around charges for assaulting other shoppers?
No- they just decided it was a misdemeanor assault, rather than a felony.
So they rewarded her selfishness? /sigh
Post by
MyTie
CNN finds out that before humans are born, we aren't inert blobs....
NEWS FLASH!
Post by
MyTie
No- they just decided it was a misdemeanor assault, rather than a felony.
So they rewarded her selfishness? /sigh
Selfishness is not a felony. It's not as if she was rewarded. She simply was charged according to the law.
Post by
Jubilee
Ridiculous antigay ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
Response:
http://news.advocate.com/post/13974499441/stephen-colbert-rips-rick-perry-for-antigay-ad
Post by
Pwntiff
Loved Colbert's response.
Hmm, I know service members are supposed to officially remain neutral in politics, so why does Perry have an ad that is nothing but service member
endorsements
?
Service members are free to have whatever political stance they want, but they aren't supposed to make it publicly known in a way that associates their opinion with the armed forces.
Post by
Jubilee
Loved Colbert's response.
Hmm, I know service members are supposed to officially remain neutral in politics, so why does Perry have an ad that is nothing but service member
endorsements
?
Service members are free to have whatever political stance they want, but they aren't supposed to make it publicly known in a way that associates their opinion with the armed forces.
I assume they are all retired.
Post by
Pwntiff
Yeah, I looked into it. It's actually a wearing uniform type thing, which applies to retired members too, but that ad comes too close to bending the spirit of the directive while maintaining the letter of it, in my opinion.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.